green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
12.3 score
G Cite
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Steven Whiting v. George I. Kirk, Jr., Robert S. Choquette, Steven Whiting v. George I. Kirk, Jr.
(2×)
it would be a strange and unworkable rule that required a sheriff, at his peril, to determine the ultimate legal validity of every warrant - regular on its face and issued by proper authority - before serving it.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
American Cyanamid Co. v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.
the greater the number of identical or more or less similar trade-marks (sic) already in use on different kinds of goods, the less is the likelihood of confusion
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Robert Neal Allen
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Ct. 267, 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
ADT, LLC v. Capital Connect, Inc.
See Amsta r Corporation v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.) (holding that actual confusion evidence is the “best evidence of likelihood of confusion”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980). b.
cited
Cited "see"
Foxworthy v. Custom Tees, Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 *1215 S.Ct. 268, 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Orlando Jacobs
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 , 1003 n. 23 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Wilson v. Groaning, 25 F.2d 581, 586 (7th Cir.1994). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Sterling Drug, Incorporated v. Bayer Ag
See Kiki Undies Corp. v. Promenade Hosiery Mills, Inc., 411 F.2d 1097, 1100 (2d Cir.1969), cert. dismissed, 396 U.S. 1054 , 90 S.Ct. 707 , 24 L.Ed.2d 698 (1970). 4 Citing Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 264 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980), Bayer AG argues that Sterling's survey represented a mere "word association" test, and was therefore not probative.
cited
Cited "see"
Hamrick v. City of Eustace
See Turner v. Baynes, 611 F.2d 92, 93 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 900 , 101 S.Ct. 269 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); see also Hamill v. Wright, 870 F.2d 1032 , 1036*(5th Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Scarfo
See United States v. Lebovitz, 669 F.2d 894, 901 (3d Cir.) (when trial court fails to articulate balancing test, in some instances we find that court implicitly made the requisite balancing) (citing United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 1003 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980)), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 929 , 102 S.Ct. 1979 , 72 L.Ed.2d 446 (1982); United States v. Long, 574 F.2d 761, 766 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 985 , 99 S.Ct. 577 , 58 L.Ed.2d 657 (1978) (the dynamics of a trial do not always permit a detailed Rule 403 analysis).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. True
See United States v. Redding, supra. Cf. United States v. Browers, supra. Its effect in the present case can be more readily equated with other remedies such as dismissal (see United States v. Gonzales, 617 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980)) or exclusion of the Government’s expert evidence (see United States v. Presser, supra) which were otherwise available and subject to appeal.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ronald Benton Elliott
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 993 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); United States v. Billups, 522 F.Supp. 935, 955 (E.D.Va.1981) (court can admit 404(b) evidence for one purpose or many, and its admissability can be upheld if it was proper for any purpose), aff'd., 692 F.2d 320 (4th Cir.1982). 4.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. James L. Williams
Accord United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 , 993 & n. 10 (3d Cir.) (adopting reasoning of Ro-senstein), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
G. Heileman Brewing Co. v. Anheuser-Busch Inc.
See Amstar Corporation v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 259 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Brooks Shoe Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. Suave Shoe Corporation, 533 F.Supp. 75 , 77-78 n. 4 (S.D.Fla.1981), aff' d, 716 F.2d 854 (11th Cir.1983). 40.
cited
Cited "see"
Little Caesar Enterprises, Inc. v. Pizza Caesar, Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Polo Fashions, Inc. v. Telesforo Fernandez & Hno., Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ambrit, Inc., F/k/a the Isaly Company, Inc., Cross v. Kraft, Inc., Cross-Appellee
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 259 (5th Cir.) (72 third party uses led to weak protection), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Sun Banks of Florida, Inc., 651 F.2d at 316 (4400 uses in Florida alone led to weak protection).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ambrit, Inc. v. Kraft, Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 259 (5th Cir.) (72 third party uses led to weak protection), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Sun Banks of Florida, Inc., 651 F.2d at 316 (4400 uses in Florida alone led to weak protection).
discussed
Cited "see"
Reginald R. Brinkmann, Jr. v. Rick Johnston, Don T. Cates, Caroline Berthelot, A/K/A Carolyn B. Brinkmann, and Judge Herbert Line
See Hale, 786 F.2d at 690 (citing Randall v. Brigham, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 523 , 19 L.Ed. 285 (1869)) and Turner v. Raynes, 611 F.2d 92 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 900 , 101 S.Ct. 269 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. De Peri, Joseph. Appeal of Joseph De Peri. United States of America v. Martin, James. Appeal of James Martin. United States of America v. Linso, Dennis. Appeal of Dennis Linso. United States of America v. Morrell, George. Appeal of George Morrell. United States of America v. Pecic, Henry. Appeal of Henry Pecic. United States of America v. Murphy, Theodore. Appeal of Theodore Murphy. United States of America v. Katz, George. Appeal of George Katz
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 995 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. De Peri
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 995 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Freedom Savings and Loan Association, Counterclaim/defendant v. Vernon Way, Jr., D/B/A Freedom Realty, Counterclaim/plaintiff
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Comidas Exquisitos, Inc. v. Carlos McGee's Mexican Cafe, Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); beef & brew, inc. v. BEEF & BREW, INC., 389 F.Supp. 179, 186 (D.Or.1974); McCarthy § 23:35.
discussed
Cited "see"
Falcon Rice Mill, Inc. v. Community Rice Mill, Inc. And James Vidrine
Although Falcon asserts four causes of action, the underlying issue is the same in each: are Community’s packages so similar to Falcon’s that they create a likelihood of confusion as to the source of the products? 6 “[T]he basic test under every type of ‘unfair competition’ is the ‘likelihood of confusion’ test.” Chevron Chemical Co. v. Voluntary Purchasing Groups, Inc., 5 Cir. 1981, 659 F.2d 695, 703 , cert. denied, 1982, 457 U.S. 1126 , 102 S.Ct. 2947 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1342 ; accord, Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 5 Cir., 615 F.2d 252, 265 , cert. *344 denied, 1980, 449 U…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kent Borden Rogers, United States of America v. Jacob N. Peilte
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 1005 (3d Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); United States v. Romano, 583 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jon E. Yount v. Ernest S. Patton, Superintendent, Sci--Camp Hill, and Harvey Bartle Iii, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
(2×)
At the same time, a juror's assurance that he can enter the jury box without an opinion is not dispositive if the accused can demonstrate "the actual existence of such an opinion in the mind of the juror as will raise the presumption of partiality." Murphy, 421 U.S. at 800 , 95 S.Ct. at 2036 (quoting Irvin, 366 U.S. at 723 , 81 S.Ct. at 1643 ); see United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 995 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980). 82 The petitioner challenging his state court conviction in a habeas corpus proceeding must shoulder a particularly heavy b…
discussed
Cited "see"
Abbott v. State
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 1005 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); United States v. Romano, 583 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir.1978); and United States v. Jones, 542 F.2d 186, 199 (4th Cir.1976), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 922 , 96 S.Ct. 2629 , 49 L.Ed.2d 375 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Brooks Shoe Manufacturing Co., Inc., a Pennsylvania Corporation, Plaintiff v. Suave Shoe Corporation, a Florida Corporation
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 264 (5th Cir.1980) (“The appropriate universe should include a fair sampling of those purchasers most likely to partake of the alleged infringer’s goods or services.”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); cf. American Basketball Association v. AMF Voit, Inc., 358 F.Supp. 981, 986 (S.D.N.Y.) (discounting survey which allegedly demonstrated that red, white and blue basketballs had acquired secondary meaning, in part because plaintiff’s survey universe, males between 12 and 23 years old who had playe…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 997 (3d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1981) (noting "longstanding rule that counsel's intentional tactical decisions at trial bind his client."). 39 Moreover, there is not the slightest indication in this record that the interview with Juror No. 9 in any way influenced the verdict.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Aimone
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 997 (3d Cir.1980), cert, denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1981) (noting “longstanding rule that counsel’s intentional tactical decisions at trial bind his client.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
ChiChi's Inc. v. Chi-Mex, Inc.
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Scott Paper Co. v. Scott’s Liquid Gold, Inc., 589 F.2d 1225, 1229 (3d Cir.1978); Scarves by Vera, Inc. v. Todo Imports Ltd., 544 F.2d 1167, 1173 (2d Cir.1976); Scott v. Mego International, Inc., 519 F.Supp. 1118, 1128-35 (D.Minn.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
Shakey's Incorporated v. Isabel Covalt, Covalt Enterprises, Inc., Pi Arn Squared, Inc., D/B/A Suspenders Pizza, Fred Jansen, and Sande Dahl, Shakey's Incorporated v. Isabel Covalt, Covalt Enterprises, Inc., Pi Arn Squared, Inc., D/B/A Suspenders Pizza, Fred Jansen, and Sande Dahl
See, Amstar Corp. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980) 7 Shakey's correctly points out that, under Oregon law, when there is evidence of actual confusion among consumers, the court may not rule that competing tradenames are dissimilar as a matter of law.
cited
Cited "see"
Shakey's Inc. v. Covalt
See, Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 263 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980). .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. John Barry Wong
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 , 1003 n. 23 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tussel v. Witco Chemical Corp.
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 , 1003 n. 23 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); United States v. Hayes, 553 F.2d 824 , 827 n. 4 (2d Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 867 , 98 S.Ct. 204 , 54 L.Ed.2d 143 (1977); United States v. Smith, 551 F.2d 348 , 358 n. 20 (D.C.Cir.1976).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dickens, Albert, United States of America v. Pittman, Fred, Jr., United States of America v. Washington, James, United States of America v. Persons, Lonnie, United States of America v. Upshaw, Dewey, United States of America v. Cooper, Robert, Robert Cooper, A/K/A Mubarak Rai Ali, United States of America v. Monroe, Keith, United States of America v. Conerly, Alvin, Alvin Conerly, Also Known as Hijr, United States of America v. Lawson, Willie Lee, Willie Lee Lawson, A/K/A Acqueel, United States of America v. Grey, Claude, Ahmed Muhammad, A/K/A Claude Grey, United States of America v. Skinner, Raymond, Raymond Skinner, Also Known as Rafeeq, United States of America v. Thompson, Walton Earl, United States of America v. Clark, James, United States of America v. Brunson, James, United States of America v. Kreps, Sheldon, United States of America v. Moses, Rosco, United States of America v. Dickens, Ronald
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lee v. United States
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 997 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980) (smoking of marijuana during the course of trial does not require new trial absent showing of prejudice; is not prejudicial as a matter of law); United States v. Taliaferro, 558 F.2d 724 , *774 726 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1016 , 98 S.Ct. 734 , 54 L.Ed.2d 761 (1978) (showing of prejudice required when new trial sought because jurors drank alcoholic beverages during dinner recess). 3 .
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Dickens
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joy Jimmy Neal
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 997 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 ; United States v. Gigax, 605 F.2d 507, 514-15 (10th Cir.); Max-field v. United States, 360 F.2d 97, 103 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 830 , 87 S.Ct. 66 , 17 L.Ed.2d 66 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Druckenmiller v. United States
See, Turner v. Raynes, 611 F.2d 92, 93 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 900 , 101 S.Ct. 269 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980) (sheriff need not determine “ultimate legal validity” of warrant before serving it); Atkins v. Lanning, 556 F.2d 485, 487 (10th Cir. 1977) (per curiam) (no liability where police officer makes an arrest pursuant to a valid warrant); Perry v. Jones, 506 F.2d 778, 780 (5th Cir. 1975) (same); Bezdek v. City of Elmhurst, 70 F.R.D. 636, 639 (N.D.Ill.1976) (same).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rock v. Zimmerman
Thus, prejudice is to be presumed only in cases where “the influence of the news media, either in the community at large or in the courtroom itself, pervaded the proceedings.” Murphy v. Florida, supra. 421 U.S. at 794 , 95 S.Ct. at 2031 ; see United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 995 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
American Rice, Inc. v. Arkansas Rice Growers Cooperative Ass'n
See Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252, 258-59 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Boston Professional Hockey, supra, at 1010.
cited
Cited "see"
Government of the Virgin Islands v. Bedford, Warren
See United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 1003 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert A. Lebovitz
(2×)
When faced with the failure of the trial court to undertake the articulated balancing which this court has on numerous occasions directed, id.; see United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 1003 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980) (in context of Rule 609 balancing), we have followed two paths.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Tariq
See United States v. Gonzales, 617 F.2d 1358, 1363 (9 Cir. 1980) (per curiam), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Stocki v. Nunn
See, eg., Barnes, 858 P.2d at 529 and United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 1004 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Robert David Figueroa v. Audrey P. Blackburn
See King v. Love, 766 F.2d 962, 966 (6th Cir.) (“[A]ny statements made by the Supreme Court about judges of courts having only limited or inferior jurisdiction were dicta”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 971 , 106 S.Ct. 351 , 88 L.Ed.2d 320 (1985); see also Turner v. Raynes, 611 F.2d 92, 94 (5th Cir.) (opining that the Supreme Court’s pronouncements on immunity for judges of courts of inferior or limited jurisdiction have been “circumspect”), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 900 , 101 S.Ct. 269 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lane Capital Management, Inc. v. Lane Capital Management, Inc.
See, e.g., Amstar Corp. v. Domino’s Pizza, Inc., 615 F.2d 252 (5th Cir.) (“Domino” not primarily merely surname), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 268 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); Fisher Radio Corp. v. Bird Elec.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Parker v. Artery
(2×)
See, e.g., Barnes, 858 P.2d at 529 and United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 1004 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Cornel T. Montague
(2×)
See, e.g., United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985, 1001-02 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980); United States v. Dominguez, 604 F.2d 304, 311 (4th Cir.1979), cert. denied sub nom.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Harry P. Casoni, A/K/A Pete Casoni
See, e.g., United States v. Provenzano, 620 F.2d 985 , 1002 n. 21 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 899 , 101 S.Ct. 267 , 66 L.Ed.2d 129 (1980).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Menominee Tribe of Indians
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 80-107.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 14, 1980.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: First Circuit (2) · D. New Jersey (1)
Ct. Cl. Certiorari denied.