Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 78 CALAPP2D 234 - Jackman v. Mau

Jackman v. Mau’s Empirical Analysis

1947

Citation profile

29
cited by 29 later decisions
2
states following
May 1981
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently May 1981 · most notably Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Sahati (1948), 201 Cal. App. 2d 765 - People Ex Rel. Mosk v. National Research Co. of California (1962)

7 federal appellate · 18 state decisions

13019471950196019701980decided

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 15 Cal. 2d 685 - Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences v. Benson · Scandinavia Belting Co. v. Asbestos & Rubber Works of America, Inc. · Ward-Chandler Building Co. v. Caldwell · 68 Cal. App. 2d 523 - Hoyt Heater Co. v. Hoyt · Miller v. Motor Coach Company

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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““That a property right attaches to a trade name which has been used for a number of years to identify and designate the business conducted, has long been the law in California. In the instant case there is no denial that the trade names ‘Jackman’, 'Jackman from California’; and ‘Jackman of Hollywood’ have been used by plaintiffs for a number of years to designate the business which they were conducting. Under such circumstances, the law recognizes and will protect the property right which attaches to the name. Ward-Chandler Bldg. Co. v. Caldwell, 8 Cal.App.2d 375, 377 , 47 P.2d 758 . ****** “The true test is- — has the defendant ‘adopted a name which prima facie is broad enough in its concept to be mistaken by the ordinary unsuspecting person for the insti tution created by the incorporators of the plaintiff’. * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.