Volvo North America Corporation, International Merchandising Corporation and Pro-Serv, Inc. v. Men's International Professional Tennis Council, M. Marshall Happer, III and Philippe Chatrier, Men's International Professional Tennis Council and M. Marshall Happer, Iii, Counterclaimants v. Volvo North America Corporation, International Merchandising Corporation and Pro-Serv, Inc., Counterclaim-Defendants, and Donald L. Dell, Raymond S. Benton, Dell, Benton & Falk, Mark H. McCormack International Merchandising Group, International Management Inc., Transworld International Inc., and A.B. Volvo, Additional Counterclaim-Defendants’s Empirical Analysis
839 F.2d 69 · 1988
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably HBE Leasing Corp. v. Frank (1995), Volvo North America Corporation v. Men's International Professional Tennis Council M III Men's International Professional Tennis Council M III (1988)
17 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Carson v. American Brands, Inc. · Baltimore Contractors, Inc. v. Bodinger · Reavis v. Antinore · Engle v. Isaac · Switzerland Cheese Association Inc v. E Horne's Market 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“which will result from a failure to exercise appellate jurisdiction at this juncture, [or] which is likely to render ineffectual any relief that might result from an appeal from a final judgment in the litigation pending below.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]nterlocutory orders of the district courts ... granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions.”
2 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.