Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 782 F.2d 381 - Avis Rent Car System Inc v. Hertz Corporation

Avis Rent Car System Inc v. Hertz Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

782 F.2d 381 · 1986

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
2
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co. (1992), PPX Enterprises, Inc. v. Audiofidelity Enterprises, Inc. (1987)

17 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

25019861990200020102020decided

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. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Markham v. Cabell · Gemsco, Inc. v. Walling · Cabell v. Markham

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

  1. “Fundamental to any task of interpretation is the principle that text must yield to context.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[f]indings of fact, whether based on oral or documentary evidence, shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.