Smith v. Montoro’s Empirical Analysis
648 F.2d 602 · 1981
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018 · most notably Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. (2003), Transgo, Inc. v. Ajac Transmission Parts Corp. (1985)
57 federal appellate · 8 district · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · Stoner v. California · National Labor Relations Board v. Burns International Security Services, Inc. · Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Inc. v. Pussycat Cinema, Ltd.
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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person who shall affix, apply, or annex, or use in connection with any goods or services ... a false designation of origin, or any false description or representation, including words or other symbols tending falsely to describe or represent the same, and shall cause such goods or services to enter into commerce, and any person who shall with knowledge of the falsity of such designation of origin or description or representation cause or procure the same to be transported or used in commerce ... shall be liable to a civil action by any person ... who believes that he is or is likely to be damaged by the use of such false description or representation.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“accomplished ... when the wrongdoer removes the name or trademark on another party's product and sells that product under a name chosen by the wrongdoer.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]s a matter of policy, such conduct, like traditional palming off, is wrongful because it involves an attempt to misappro priate or profit from another’s talents and workmanship. Moreover, in reverse palming off cases, the originator of the misidentified product is involuntarily deprived of the advertising value of [his] name and the goodwill that otherwise would stem from public knowledge of the true source of the satisfactory product. The ultimate purchaser (or viewer) is also deprived of knowing the true source of the product and may even be deceived into believing that it comes from a different source.”
6 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.