Schering Corporation v. Vitarine Pharmaceuticals Inc Milgrim Thomajan & Lee Pc T D 89-5309 Schering Corporation 89-5310’s Empirical Analysis
889 F.2d 490 · 1989
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Ford Motor Co. v. Summit Motor Products, Inc. (1991), Jones v. Pittsburgh National Corp. (1990)
21 federal appellate · 13 district · 4 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. § 1114 (§ 32 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 21 U.S.C. § 355 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Unimet Corp. v. United Steelworkers · In re Disbarment of McManus · Szabo Food Service, Inc. v. Canteen Corp. · Gaiardo v. Ethyl Corp. · Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he rule requires a reasonable inquiry into both the facts and the law supporting a particular pleading. We have stressed in two recent cases that proper analysis should focus on the circumstances that existed at the time counsel filed the challenged paper. Mary Ann Pensiero, Inc. v. Lingle, 847 F.2d 90, 95 (3d Cir.1988); Gaiardo v. Ethyl Corp., 835 F.2d 479, 484 (3d Cir.1987). The wisdom of hindsight is to be avoided; the attorney’s conduct must be judged by what was reasonable to believe at the time the pleading, motion, or other paper was submitted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rule 11 sanctions are proper only in situations involving a signed pleading.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every pleading, motion, and other paper of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in the attorney’s individual name.... The signature of an attorney or party constitutes a certificate by the signer that the signer has read the pleading ...; that to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact ..., and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation_ If a pleading ... is signed in violation of this rule, the court ... shall impose upon the person who signed it, a represented party, or both, an appropriate sanction....”
1 later decision 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.