Post Office v. Portec, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
913 F.2d 802 · 1990
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably United International Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. (2000), Sheets v. Salt Lake County (1995)
30 federal appellate · 5 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. § 1117 (§ 35 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 15 U.S.C. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act))
Relies on Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc. · Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co. · Bittner v. Sadoff & Rudoy Industries · United States v. Ortiz · Triebwasser & Katz, a Partnership Consisting of Jonah Triebwasser and William Katz v. American Telephone & Telegraph Company
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the proper justifications for punitive damages are a matter of state law, the determination of whether a jury award of punitive damages was excessive is a matter of federal law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“would be within the trial court's discretion. S.Rep. No. 1400, 93rd Cong.2d Sess., reprinted in 1974 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 7132, 7136 25 A few cases have gone as far as to require”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the defendant's net worth of only $6,942,000.00 and its total gross sales of $795,194.00 for this product to be dominant factors.”
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.