Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 708 F.3d 614 - Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega

Abraham v. Alpha Chi Omega’s Empirical Analysis

708 F.3d 614 · 2013

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
January 2025
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1051 (§ 1 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))

Relies on eBay Inc. v. MERCEXCHANGE, LL · Menendez v. Holt · Boston Professional Hockey Ass'n v. Dallas Cap & Emblem Mfg., Inc. · Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Capece · Taco Cabana International, Inc. v. Two Pesos, 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “a party has been fully heard on an issue during a jury trial and ... a reasonable jury would not have a legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the party on that issue.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We review de novo the district court's denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law, applying the same standards as the district court.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]fter a jury trial, [the] standard of review is especially deferential.”
    3 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.