green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.7 score
“a customer list developed by a business through substantial effort and kept in confidence may be treated as a trade secret at the owner's instance against disclosure to a competitor, provided the information it contains is not otherwise readily ascertainable.”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pure Power Boot Camp, Inc. v. Warrior Fitness Boot Camp, LLC
a customer list developed by a business through substantial effort and kept in confidence may be treated as a trade secret at the owner's instance against disclosure to a competitor, provided the information it contains is not otherwise readily ascertainable.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co.
n considering we have no pto view before us on in view of those references and appellants' burden of proof under 35 u.s.c. 282 is more easily carried.
cited
Cited "see"
United States of America, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Leo v. Felton Erica Chase, Appellants/cross-Appellees
See United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 388 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Hermes International v. Lederer De Paris Fifth Avenue, Inc. And Artbag Creations, Inc.
See Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1059 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jim Henson Productions, Inc. v. John T. Brady & Associates, Inc.
See Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985); Marshak v. Green, 746 F.2d 927 (2d Cir.1984). 9 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp. v. Mattress Madness, Inc.
See Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1059-60 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985); Money Store v. Harriscorp Finance, Inc., 689 F.2d 666, 677 (7th Cir.1982); Raufast S.A v. Kicker’s Pizzazz, Ltd., 208 U.S.P.Q. 699 , 702, 1980 WL 30295 (E.D.N.Y.1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Griffin v. Strong
See Hewitt v. City of Truth or Consequences, 758 F.2d 1375, 1379 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Griffin v. Strong
See Hewitt v. City of Truth or Consequences, 758 F.2d 1375, 1379 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Greenblatt v. Prescription Plan Services Corp.
See Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1063 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985) (if owner of trade secret discloses secret, even inadvertently or accidentally, or if the owner fails to take reasonable precautions to protect the information, information loses the protection of trade secret law).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Fabio Rodriguez Cortes, United States v. Eduardo Ocampo-Hoyos, United States v. Rafael Perez Martinez
(2×)
See United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 387 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Integrated Cash Management Services, Inc. v. Digital Transactions, Inc.
See Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1063 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
cited
Cited "see"
Integrated Cash Management Services, Inc. v. Digital Transactions, Inc.
See Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1063 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rose Bordanaro v. John McLeod Appeal of City of Everett, Edward Connolly, and Donald Bontempo
“Only rarely — and in extraordinarily compelling circumstances — will we, from the vista of a cold appellate record, reverse a district court’s on-the-spot judgment concerning the relative weighing of probative value and unfair effect.” Freeman v. Package Machinery, Co., 865 F.2d 1331, 1335 (1st Cir.1988); see United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 388 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Business Trends Analysts, Inc. v. Freedonia Group, Inc.
See Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1063 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985); Restatement of Torts § 757, comment b (1939); Delta Filter Corp. v. Morin, 108 A.D.2d 991, 993 , 485 N.Y.S.2d 143, 144-45 (3d Dep’t 1985).
discussed
Cited "see"
Murphy Door Bed Co. v. Interior Sleep Systems, Inc.
See Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1061 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985); Wallpaper Manufacturers, Ltd. v. Crown Wall-covering Corp., 680 F.2d 755 , 766 n. 13 (C.C.P.A.1982); DuPont Cellophane Co., Inc. v. Waxed Products Co., Inc., 6 F.Supp. 859, 881 (E.D.N.Y.1934) (the court having found that “plaintiff has established a genuine trade-mark, therefore the defendant cannot pass the burden to the plaintiff; but defendant having interposed the defense of abandonment, it must prove it.”), modified, 85 F.2d …
discussed
Cited "see"
Ballet Makers, Inc. v. United States Shoe Corp.
See Defiance Button Machine Company v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1059 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985); Universal City Studios v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 578 F.Supp. 911, 929 (S.D.N.Y.1983), aff’d, 746 F.2d 112 (2d Cir.1984). 8 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Elm City Cheese Co. v. Federico
See, e.g., Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S. Ct. 131 , 88 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Indian Head Industries, Inc. v. Ted Smith Equipment Co.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 86 S.Ct. 684, 693-94 , 15 L.Ed.2d 545 (1966); Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 1344 (Fed.Cir.) (en banc), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830 , 105 S.Ct. 116 , 83 L.Ed.2d 60 (1984); Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1535 (Fed.Cir.1983); see also EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed.Cir.) (noting that the function of witnesses, experts and otherwise, is to assist the court in determining and comprehending facts), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Frank Ray Chewning v. Russell Rogerson
See also McDonald v. Burrows, 731 F.2d 294, 297 (5th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 852 , 105 S.Ct. 173 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1984), and United States ex rel.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Major League Baseball Properties, Inc. v. Sed Non Olet Denarius, Ltd.
See, e.g., Defiance Button Machine Co. v. C & C Metal Products Corp., 759 F.2d 1053, 1059 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985) (no abandonment where cessation of business was involuntary); American International Group, Inc. v. American International Airways, Inc., 726 F.Supp. 1470 (E.D.Pa.1989) (where airline declared bankruptcy, remaining goodwill and lack of intent to abandon precluded finding abandonment). *1129 (citing Defiance, supra).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Hans Oetiker
(2×)
See, also, EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 906-07 , 225 USPQ 20, 25 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995 , 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed.Cir.1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Dcpb, Inc. v. City of Lebanon, Dcpb, Inc. v. City of Lebanon
(2×)
See Fed.R.Evid. 401 (“ ‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”); see also United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 387 (1st Cir.) (“Where ... the disputed evidence is offered to show motive, the relevancy hurdle is at its nadir.”), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Donald Frohmader v. Deputy D. Wayne
See, e.g., Hewitt v. City of Truth or Consequences, 758 F.2d 1375, 1378-79 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Austin v. Hamilton
Consequently, the substantive due process principles that in the past generally governed claims for post-arrest, pretrial violence or abuse, see Trujillo, 825 F.2d at 1458 ; see, e.g., Hewitt v. City of Truth or Consequences, 758 F.2d 1375, 1378-79 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985), provide the appropriate yardstick for the evaluation of defendants’ claim of qualified immunity for their post-arrest conduct.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Austin v. Hamilton
Consequently, the substantive due process principles that in the past generally governed claims for post-arrest, pretrial violence or abuse, see Trujillo, 825 F.2d at 1458 ; see, e.g., Hewitt v. City of Truth or Consequences, 758 F.2d 1375, 1378-79 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985), provide the appropriate yardstick for the evaluation of defendants' claim of qualified immunity for their post-arrest conduct. 22 To summarize, then, the following standards apply to plaintiffs' excessive force allegations and the individual defendants' correlative asse…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Apodaca v. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department
See also Hewitt v. City of Truth or Consequences, 758 F.2d 1375, 1379-80 (10th Cir.) (negligent conduct not constituting abuse of official power), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John Apodaca, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Theresa Apodaca, Deceased Lorraine Apodaca v. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department the County of Rio Arriba the Rio Arriba Board of County Commissioners Adelinda G. Martinez, Personal Representative of the Estate of Benigno (Ben) F. Martinez Emilio Naranjo, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Rio Arriba County Manager Delaino Romero, Individually and in His Official Capacity as a Rio Arriba County Deputy Sheriff, Earl Apodaca Janet Apodaca v. Rio Arriba County Sheriff's Department the County of Rio Arriba the Rio Arriba Board of County Commissioners Adelinda G. Martinez, Personal Representative of the Estate of Benigno (Ben) F. Martinez Emilio Naranjo, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Rio Arriba County Manager Delaino Romero, Individually and in His Official Capacity as a Rio Arriba County Deputy Sheriff
See also Hewitt v. City of Truth or Consequences, 758 F.2d 1375, 1379-80 (10th Cir.) (negligent conduct not constituting abuse of official power), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Syntex Pharmaceuticals International, Ltd. v. K-Line Pharmaceuticals, Ltd.
Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1443 (Fed.Cir.1984); Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1534 (Fed.Cir.1983); see also EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 905 (Fed.Cir.), ce rt. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Becton Dickinson and Co. v. CR Bard, Inc.
Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1443 (Fed.Cir.1984); Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1534 (Fed.Cir.1983); see also EWP Corp. v. Reliance Universal, Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 905 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 843 , 106 S.Ct. 181 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mitchell v. City Of Sapulpa
See, e.g., Hewitt v. City of Truth or Consequences, 758 F.2d 1375, 1379 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Mitchell v. City of Sapulpa
See, e.g., Hewitt v. City of Truth or Consequences, 758 F.2d 1375, 1379 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 844 , 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Research Medical, Inc.
Nor does such introduction ‘shift’ the basic burden of persuasion_ Such introduction can, of course, facilitate the challenger’s carrying of that burden.” Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1534 , 218 U.S.P.Q. 871, 875-76 (Fed.Cir.1983). “[The effect] of new prior art [not before the PTO] ... is to eliminate or at least reduce, the element of deference due the PTO, thereby partially, if not wholly, discharging the attacker’s burden....” Kimberly-Clark v. Johnson & Johnson, 745 F.2d 1437, 1443 , 223 U.S.P.Q. 603, 606 (Fed.Cir.1984) (quoting American Hoist & Derrick…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Jerril J. Krowen
“In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we consider the evidence as a whole, taken in the light most favorable to the government, together with all legitimate inferences to be drawn therefrom, to determine whether a rational trier of fact could have found each defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Drougas, 748 F.2d 8, 15 (1st Cir.1984); see also United States v. Tierney, 760 F.2d 382, 384 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 106 S.Ct. 131 , 88 L.Ed.2d 108 (1985).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Tierney
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 85-30.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 7, 1985.
Published
Citer courts: C.D. California (1) · S.D. New York (1)
C. A. 1st Cir. Certiorari denied.