Lakedreams v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
932 F.2d 1103 · 1991
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Positive Black Talk Inc. v. Cash Money Records Inc. (2004), Martin's Herend Imports, Inc. v. Diamond & Gem Trading United States of America Co. (1999)
29 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 17 U.S.C. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 201 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 410 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid · Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. · Forgay v. Conrad · Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp.
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury, (3) the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction may cause the opposing party, and (4) the injunction will not disserve the public interest.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) a substantial likelihood that they will prevail on the merits, (2) a substantial threat that they will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted, (3) that their substantial injury outweighs the threatened harm to the party whom they seek to enjoin, and (4) granting the preliminary injunction will not disserve the public interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To be appealable, an order must be final, it must fall within the specific class of interlocutory orders made appealable by statute, or it must fall within some jurisprudential exception.”
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.