Duncan v. Stuetzle’s Empirical Analysis
76 F.3d 1480 · 1996
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co. (1998), 101 Cal. App. 4th 1443 - Whyte v. Schlage Lock Company (2002)
17 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1118 (§ 36 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (§ 39 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Carnegie v. United States · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Under that test (as applied to this case), federal jurisdiction extends only to those eases in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that [1] federal [trademark] law creates the cause of action or [2] that the plaintiffs right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal [trademark] law, in that [federal trademark] law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded claims. Christianson, 486 U.S. at 808-09 , 108 S.Ct. at 2174 (1988) (citations omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f a single state-law based theory of relief can be offered for each of the three causes of action in the complaint, then the exercise of removal jurisdiction was improper.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“foot massage chair, regarding, without limitation, the product's exterior and mechanical design, the Plaintiffs' company's marketing strategy, the product's recent income, and the methods by which the machine was produced. The Defendants afterward began to produce their own foot massage chairs which closely resemble the chairs produced by Plaintiffs, and do not carry any identifying labels or machine numbers to distinguish them from Plaintiffs' product. Subsequently, the Defendants began manufacturing and distributing these duplications or reproductions of the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Duncan v. Stuetzle
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.