Norton Tire Company Inc v. Tire Kingdom Company Inc Norton Tire Co Inc’s Empirical Analysis
858 F.2d 1533 · 1988
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 2011
6 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 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Swift Company v. United States · Jurldine A. Donaldson v. Paul v. Clark · Yoder Brothers, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross v. California-Florida Plant Corporation, Defendants-Appellees-Crossappellants. California-Florida Plant Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Crossappellants v. Yoder Brothers, Inc., Defendant-Appellant-Cross
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a plaintiff must show (1) an intent to bring about a monopoly and (2) a dangerous probability of success.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“by virtue of his close contact with the parties is best able to determine the propriety of sanctions.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Baker v. Alderman
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.