Freiman v. Lazur’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 14 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently April 2015
2 federal appellate · 14 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)) · 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1498 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2679
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · McGee v. International Life Insurance · Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty. · Travelers Health Ass'n v. Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission
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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“qualitatively significant” and that it did not rise to the level of a comparatively significant contact in the parties’ course of dealing. Id. Quite to the contrary, the parties’ negotiations in Washington D.C. in this case consisted not of a single meeting, but a course of nineteen sessions. Moreover, the meetings were”
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.