Yeager v. CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp. · Max Lopez Jr v. Ga Smith Larry Loo a Acevedo Patterson 4a-2r · Amf Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats E
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Incidental use of name or likeness. The value of the plaintiffs name is not appropriated by mere mention of it, or by reference' to it in connection with legitimate mention of his public activities; nor is the value of his likeness appropriated w hen it is published for purposes other than taking advantage of his reputation, prestige, or other value associated with him, for purposes of publicity. No one has the right to object merely because his name or his appearance is brought before the public, since neither is in any way a private matter and both are open to public observation. It is only when the publicity is given for the purpose of appropriating to the defendant’s benefit the commercial dr other values associated with the name or the likeness that the right of privacy is invaded.”
1 later decision 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.