Vuitton v. White’s Empirical Analysis
945 F.2d 569 · 1991
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Casey, Northeast Ohio Coalition For the Homeless & Service Employees International Union, Local 1199 v. Blackwell (2006)
16 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Weinstein v. Bradford · Carson v. American Brands, Inc. · Opticians Ass'n of America v. Independent Opticians of America · Hoxworth v. Blinder, Robinson & Co. · In the Matter of Vuitton et Fils Sa
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. the person obtaining an order under this subsection provides the security determined adequate by the court for the payment of such damages as any person may be entitled to recover as a result of a wrongful seizure or wrongful attempted seizure under this subsection; and B. the court finds that it clearly appears from specific facts that— i. an order other than an ex parte seizure order is not adequate to achieve the purposes of ... this Act; ii. the applicant has not publicized the requested seizure; iii. the applicant is likely to succeed in showing that the person against whom seizure would be ordered used a counterfeit mark in connection with the sale, offering for sale, or distribution of goods or. services; iv. an immediate and irreparable injury will occur if such seizure is not ordered; v. the matter to be seized will be located at the place identified in the application; vi. the harm to the applicant of denying the application outweighs the harm to the legitimate interests of the person against whom seizure would be ordered of granting the application; and vii. the person against whom seizure would be ordered, or persons acting in concert with such person, would destroy, move, hide, or otherwise make such matter inaccessible to the court, if the applicant were to proceed on notice to such person.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“destroy [ing] or transfer[ring] counterfeit merchandise when a day in court is on the horizon.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If we were to conclude that a § 1116 seizure order would be inappropriate in this case, we would be hard pressed to image a case in which such an order would be appropriate.”
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.