Hilton v. Hallmark Cards’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.3d 894 · 2009
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Allen v. Wright · Catlin v. United States · Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. · Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person's right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court determines that the plaintiff has established that there is a probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a greeting] card certainly evinces '[a]n intent to convey a particularized message ..., and in the surrounding circumstances the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a federal court can only entertain anti-SLAPP special motions to strike in connection with state law claims”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.