green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
8.0 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“SGK v. Kodak ”
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 34 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Johnson v. The People
See Carden v. 2 Montana, 626 F.2d 82 , 83-84 & n.1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980); see also 3 Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43-54 (1971); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 68-74 (1971) 4 (holding that under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 5 ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent 6 extraordinary circumstances).
discussed
Cited "see"
(HC) Turner v. Ferrara
See Carden v. 19 Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 84-85 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980) (detainees’ 20 “appropriate remedy is to proceed to trial and thereafter raise their speedy trial claim if they wish 21 to do so”); accord Johnson v. Superior Court, 2006 WL 3716307 , at *1 (N.D.
discussed
Cited "see"
Causey v. Alameda County Superior Court
See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82 , 83-84 & n.1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 8 449 U.S. 1014 (1980); see also Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-54 ; Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 , 68- 9 74 (1971) (under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 10 ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent 11 extraordinary circumstances).
discussed
Cited "see"
Bonilla v. Superior Court, County of Santa Clara
See Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82 , 83-84 & n.1 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 8 449 U.S. 1014 (1980); see also Younger, 401 U.S. at 43-54 ; Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66 , 68- 9 74 (1971) (under principles of comity and federalism, a federal court should not interfere with 10 ongoing state criminal proceedings by granting injunctive or declaratory relief absent 11 extraordinary circumstances).
discussed
Cited "see"
People v. Coss
Furthermore, the search of defendant's vehicle by an Airborne Auto employee — a private individual who was not acting at the direction of police — did not violate his constitutional rights, as the Fourth Amendment "proscrib[es] only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the [g]overnment or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official" ( United States v Jacobsen , 466 US 109, 113-114 [1984] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see People v Ad…
discussed
Cited "see"
Perseptive Biosystems, Inc. v. Pharmacia Biotech, Inc.
It added: “It is not invention to perceive that the product which others had discovered had qualities they failed to detect.” Id. at 249 , 66 S.Ct. 81 ; see also De Forest Radio Co. v. General Electric Co., 283 U.S. 664, 682 , 51 S.Ct. 563 , 75 L.Ed. 1339 (1931) (“It is method and device which may be patented and not the scientific explanation of their operation.”); accord Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk A/S
See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Labs., 630 F.2d 120, 137 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Smith, 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1977 , 1989, 1990 WL 121353 (E.D.Pa.1990), aff'd, *286 959 F.2d 936 (Fed.Cir.1992) (“[t]he policy rationales behind the patent statutes generally apply with even greater strength in the case of drug patents.
discussed
Cited "see"
James Lee Hess v. Samuel Lewis
See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971); see also Fort Belknap Indian Community, 43 F.3d at 431 (abstention appropriate if ongoing state judicial proceedings implicate important state interests and offer adequate opportunity to litigate federal constitutional issues). "[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts." Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir.1972) (per curiam); see Carden v. Mo…
discussed
Cited "see"
Joshua Tobias Ortega v. Glen Craig, Sheriff of the County of Sacramento
See Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 45-46 (1971); see also Fort Belknap Indian Community, 43 F.3d at 431 (abstention appropriate if ongoing state judicial proceedings implicate important state interests and offer adequate opportunity to litigate federal constitutional issues). "[O]nly in the most unusual circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in the state courts." Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir.1972) (per curiam); see Carden v. Mo…
discussed
Cited "see"
Graham v. Bodine Electric Co.
(2×)
See Scarboro v. First American Nat’l Bk. of Nash *77 ville, 619 F.2d 621, 622 (6th Cir.) (per curiam), ce rt. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 572 , 66 L.Ed.2d 472 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Metrologic Instruments, Inc.
See Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Co., 616 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980).
cited
Cited "see"
Country Floors, Inc. v. A Partnership Composed of Charley Gepner and Gary Ford, D/B/A Country Tiles
See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Labs., Inc., 630 F.2d 120 , 136 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Crucible Materials Corp. v. Sumitomo Special Metals Co.
See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120 , 136 n. 73 (3rd Cir.) (dictum), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Illinois Tool Works, Inc. v. Sweetheart Plastics, Inc., 436 F.2d 1180, 1187 (7th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 403 U.S. 942 , 91 S.Ct. 2270 , 29 L.Ed.2d 722 (1971).
discussed
Cited "see"
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Steel Corp.
See Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Eastman Kodak Co., 450 F.Supp. 1211, 1227 (E.D.Tex.1977), aff'd in part and rev'd in part, 616 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Jacobsen
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 238-239 (1983). [3] See also People v. Adler, 50 N. Y. 2d 730, 409 N. E. 2d 888 , cert. denied, 449 U. S. 1014 (1980); cf. United States v. Andrews, 618 F. 2d 646 (CA10) (upholding warrantless field test without discussion), cert. denied, 449 U. S. 824 (1980). [4] See Illinois v. Andreas, 463 U. S. 765, 771 (1983); United States v. Knotts, 460 U. S. 276, 280-281 (1983); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U. S. 735, 739-741 (1979); Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 9 (1968). [5] See United States v. Place, 462 U. S. 696 (1983); id., at 716 (BRENNAN, J., concurring in result)…
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Varney
See People v. Adler, 50 N.Y. 2d 730 , 737-738 n.4, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Smith International, Inc., a California Corporation v. Hughes Tool Company, a Delaware Corporation
See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Labs., 630 F.2d 120, 136 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Tyrolean Handbag Co. v. Empress Hand Bag, Inc., 122 F.Supp. 299, 302 (S.D.N.Y.1954).
discussed
Cited "see"
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Steel Corp.
Moreover, while the burden rests on the moving party to make these two requisite showings, the district court “should take into account, when they are relevant, (3) the possibility of harm to other interested persons from the grant or denial of the injunction, and (4) the public interest.” In Re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litigation, 689 F.2d 1137, 1143 (3d Cir.1982) (quoting Oburn v. Shapp, 521 F.2d 142, 147 (3d Cir.1975) (citations omitted)); see Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120, 136 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L…
discussed
Cited "see"
Studiengesellschaft Kohle mbH v. Dart Industries, Inc.
See Studiengesellschaft Kohle (SGK) v. Eastman Kodak Co., 616 F.2d 1315 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Advanced Hydraulics, Inc. v. Otis Elevator Co., 525 F.2d 477 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 869 , 96 S.Ct. 132 , 46 L.Ed.2d 99 (1975); Baker Mfg.
cited
Cited "see"
Westside, Etc. v. School Dist. 4j, Etc.
See Jarvill v. City of Eugene, 289 Or. 157 , 613 P.2d 1 , cert. den. 449 U.S. 1013 , 101 S.Ct. 572 , 66 L.Ed.2d 472 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see"
Multnomah County v. Talbot
See Jarvill v. City of Eugene, 289 Or. 157 , 613 P.2d 1 , cert. den. 449 U.S. 1013 , 101 S.Ct. 572 , 66 L.Ed.2d 472 (1980), where the Supreme Court characterized such split jurisdiction as "patently unreasonable" and one which the legislature could not have intended. [10] That dissenting opinion appears to overlook the fact that review of orders granting certification and review of orders denying certification involve the same considerations.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
(HC) Casarez v. People of San Joaquin County
“The Younger 18 doctrine was borne of the concern that federal court injunctions might unduly hamper a state in its 19 prosecution of criminal laws.” Miofsky v. Superior Court, 703 F.2d 332 , 336 (9th Cir. 1983). 20 “[A]bstention principles generally require a federal district court to abstain from exercising 21 jurisdiction over a habeas petition in which the petitioner raises a claim… as an affirmative 22 defense to state prosecution.” Brown v. Ahern, 676 F.3d 899, 903 (9th Cir. 2012); see also 23 Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980) …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
(PC)Arceo v. Tetreault
Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 432 . ““[O]nly in the most unusual 1 circumstances is a defendant entitled to have federal interposition by way of injunction or habeas 2 corpus until after the jury comes in, judgment has been appealed from and the case concluded in 3 the state courts.” Drury v. Cox, 457 F.2d 764, 764-65 (9th Cir.1972); see also Carden v. 4 Montana, 626 F.2d 82, 83-84 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Simmonds v. Houser
Cal. Apr. 24, 2009)(“This principle of ‘Younger abstention’ is also applicable to claims raised in federal habeas corpus proceedings.”) (citing Edelbacher v. Calderon, 160 F.3d 582, 587 (9th Cir. 1998); Carden v. State of Montana, 626 1 Judicial notice is “[a] court’s acceptance, for purposes of convenience and without requiring a party’s proof, of a well-known and indisputable fact; the court’s power to accept such a fact.” Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014); see also Headwaters Inc. v. U.S. Forest Service, 399 F.3d 1047 , 1051 n. 3 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Materials from a…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
George v. State
See Commonwealth v. Copenhefer, 526 Pa. 555 , 587 A.2d 1353, 1356 (1991) (concluding an FBI computer expert's recovery of electronic files from a computer lawfully seized pursuant to a warrant did not constitute a search in part because "many analogous situations," such as deciphering a lawfully seized coded diary, "do not require police officers to obtain a second search warrant" (emphasis in original)), abrogated on other grounds by Commonwealth v. Rizzuto, 566 Pa. 40 , 777 A.2d 1069, 1088-89 (2001); State v. Petrone, 161 Wis.2d 530 , 468 N.W.2d 676, 681 (1991) (concluding the development of…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rosen Entertainment Systems, LP v. Eiger Vision
See e.g., Chisum, Patents § 20.04[l][e][iv], citing, Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120 (3rd Cir.1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980) (considering inability of accused infringer to pay potential damage award); Wang Lab. v. Chip Merchant, Inc., 1993 U.S. Dist.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Klitzman, Klitzman and Gallagher v. Robert J. Krut, Vernon Holmes, W. Hunt Dumont, Michael Milner
Smith Corp. v. FTC, 530 F.2d 515 , 525 (3d Cir.1976); see also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120, 136 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Constructors Association of Western Pennsylvania v. Kreps, 573 F.2d 811, 814-15 (3d Cir.1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sherwood v. Tomkins
See e.g., Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980) (district court's grant before state trial of petition for habeas corpus on speedy trial claim was premature since comity requires exhaustion of state proceedings before collateral relief can be sought); Bryant v. Bailey, 464 F.2d 560 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1115 , 93 S.Ct. 932 , 34 L.Ed.2d 698 (1973) (state remedies held not exhausted where prisoner had unsuccessfully petitioned state courts for free transcript for appeal, and appeal still pending); Daniels v…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sherwood v. Tomkins
See e.g., Carden v. Montana, 626 F.2d 82 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980) (district court’s grant before state trial of petition for habeas corpus on speedy trial claim was premature since comity requires exhaustion of state proceedings before collateral relief can be sought); Bryant v. Bailey, 464 F.2d 560 (5th Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1115 , 93 S.Ct. 932 , 34 L.Ed.2d 698 (1973) (state remedies held not exhausted where prisoner had unsuccessfully petitioned state courts for free transcript for appeal, and appeal still pending); Daniels…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Freeland
See, e.g., Jarvill v. City of Eugene, 289 Or. 157, 184, 185 , 613 P.2d 1 , cert den 449 U.S. 1013 , 101 S.Ct. 572 , 66 L.Ed.2d 472 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Bradley Thomas Jacobsen and Donna Marie Jacobsen
(2×)
See also People v. Adler, 50 N.Y.2d 730 , 431 N.Y.S.2d 412 , 409 N.E.2d 888 , cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); cf. United States v. Andrews, 618 F.2d 646 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 824 , 101 S.Ct. 84 , 66 L.Ed.2d 26 (1980), (upholding without discussion search involving sampling and testing following more limited private search).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Standard Oil Company (Indiana) v. Montedison
See also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120, 133 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Trio Process Corp. v. L.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Standard Oil Co. v. Montedison, S.p.A.
See also Eli Lilly & Co. v. Premo Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Inc., 630 F.2d 120, 133 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1014 , 101 S.Ct. 573 , 66 L.Ed.2d 473 (1980); Trio Process Corp. v. L.
First American National Bank of Nashville
v.
Scarboro
v.
Scarboro
No. 80-522.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 1, 1980.
Cited by 6 opinions | Published
Citer courts: D. Delaware (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.