Brown v. Armstrong’s Empirical Analysis
1997
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently March 2019
2 federal appellate · 12 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. § 102 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 411 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Thomas v. Arn · Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. · Mesnick v. General Electric Co. · Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc.
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a concise statement of the material facts of record as to which it is contended that there exists a genuine issue to be tried, with page references to affidavits, depositions and other documentation”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“had a probable future business relationship anticipating a reasonable expectancy of financial benefit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As articulated in the Brown case: To prevail on a claim for false advertising under § 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, Plaintiffs must establish at least the following three elements: (1) Defendants made false or deceptive advertisements or representations to customers; (2) those advertisements deceived a significant portion of the consuming public; and (3) Plaintiffs were injured by Defendants’ conduct. Pacamor Bearings, Inc. v. Minebea Co. Ltd., 918 F.Supp. 491, 498 (D.N.H.1996): see also William H. Morris Co. v. Group W, Inc., 66 F.3d 255, 257 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (adopting this three-part test). * * * * * It is axiomatic that, to establish false advertising, Plaintiffs must identify an advertisement or promotion containing false information. Section 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act, by its express terms, is limited to misrepresentations contained in “commercial advertising or promotion.” 15 .U.S.C.A. § 1125(a)(1)(B). To fall within the scope § 43(a)(1)(B), an advertisement or promotion must be: (1) commercial speech; (2) by a defendant who is in commercial competition with plaintiff; (3) for purposes of influencing consumers to buy defendant’s goods; ... [and,] (4) disseminated sufficiently to the relevant purchasing public. Gordon and Breach Science Publishers v. American Institute of Physics, 859 F.Supp. 1521, 1536 (S.D.N.Y.1994); see also Seven-Up Co. v. Coca-Cola Co., 86 F.3d 1379, 1384 (5th Cir.1996) (adopting this four-part test for determining scope of § 43(a)(1)”
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.