← 878 FSUPP 1224 - Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade

Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade’s Empirical Analysis

1995

Citation profile

cited by 49 later decisions

states following

November 2018

most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Bendinger v. Marshalltown Trowell Co. (1999), 887 F. Supp. 1249 - HEATHER K. BY ANITA K. v. City of Mallard, Iowa (1995)

2 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 1116 (§ 34 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Hanna v. Plumer · Arnett v. Kennedy · W. R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, International Union of the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers

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

“factor involves, among other things, the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
e.g. 920 F. Supp. 1405 - Uncle B's Bakery, Inc. v. O'ROURKE · 461 F. Supp. 2d 943 - Interbake Foods, L.L.C. v. Tomasiello
“(1) A court, subject to constitutional restrictions, will follow a statutory directive or its own state on choice of law. (2) When there is no such directive, the factors relevant to the choice of the applicable rule of law include (a) the needs of the interstate and international systems, (b) the relevant policies of the forum, (c) the relevant policies of other interested states and the relative interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue, (d) the protection of justified expectations, (e) the basic policies underlying the particular field of law, (f) certainty, predictability and uniformity of result, and (g) ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 60 F. Supp. 2d 869 - Paper Manufacturers Co. v. Rescuers, Inc.
“Essentially, [this rule requires] us to apply a reasonableness standard in maintaining a proper balance between the interests of the employer and the employee. Although we must afford fair protection to the business interest of the employer, the restriction on the employee must be no greater than necessary to protect the employer. Moreover, the covenant must not be oppressive or create hardships on the employee out of proportion to the benefits the employer may be expected to gain.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 638 F. Supp. 2d 1042 - NCMIC Finance Corporation v. Artino

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.