green
Positive treatment
5.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Monahan v. County of Chesterfield
See Bodie v. City of Columbia, 934 F.2d 561, 564-65 (4th Cir.l99D (“[C]on-tinuance in the job and acceptance under the new plan of payment was sufficient to create a valid agreement, even though the agreement was implied and not in writing”) (citing Rousseau v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 805 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987); Rotando v. City of Georgetown, S.C. 869 F.Supp. 369, 376-77 (D.S.C.1994)) (citing Harrison v. City of Clarksville, Tenn., 732 F.Supp. 810, 815 (M.D.Tenn.1990)). “[W]e will also not allow employees merely…
discussed
Cited "see"
Brian F. Monahan v. County Of Chesterfield, Virginia
See Bodie v. City of Columbia, 934 F.2d 561, 564-65 (4th Cir.1991) ("[C]ontinuance in the job and acceptance under the new plan of payment was sufficient to create a valid agreement, even though the agreement was implied and not in writing") (citing Rousseau v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 805 F.2d 1245 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987); Rotondo v. City of Georgetown, S.C. 869 F.Supp. 369, 376-77 (D.S.C.1994)) (citing Harrison v. City of Clarksville, Tenn., 732 F.Supp. 810, 815 (M.D.Tenn.1990)). "[W]e will also not allow employees merely to gr…
discussed
Cited "see"
Motorola, Inc. v. Interdigital Technology Corp.
Invalidity by reason of anticipation “requires that all of the elements and limitations of the claim are found within a single prior art reference.” Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1991); see Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Steel Corp., 673 F.Supp. 1278, 1287 (D.Del.1987), aff'd 865 F.2d 1247 (Fed.Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
California Medical Products, Inc. v. Tecnol Medical Products, Inc.
Invalidity by reason of anticipation “requires that all of the elements and limitations of the claim are found within a single prior art reference.” Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1991); see Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987); Phillips Petroleum Co. v. United States Steel Corp., 673 F.Supp. 1278, 1287 (D.Del.1987), aff'd 865 F.2d 1247 (Fed.Cir.1989).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lucas Aerospace, Ltd. v. Unison Industries, L.P.
See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed.Cir.) (stating that a court must "consider all of the evidence” presented at trial when evaluating a motion for judgment as a matter of law), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987). 9 .
discussed
Cited "see"
EI DuPont De Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Co.
Invalidity by reason of anticipation “requires that all of the elements and limitations of the claim are found within a single prior art reference.” Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. Genentech, Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1991); see Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987); Phillips Petroleum, 673 F.Supp. at 1287 .
cited
Cited "see"
Marion Merrell Dow, Inc. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
See Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed.Cir. 1986).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mathai
See generally United States v. Blocker, supra. Furthermore, it is the implied use of the power of his “office” which provides the necessary deception to establish “inveiglement.” See generally United States v. Hicks, 24 MJ 3 (CMA) (use of status sufficient to supply element of force), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Kelly
See United States v. Hicks, 24 M.J. 3, 10 (C.M.A.1987), cert. denied 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Munoz
See United States v. Hicks, 24 MJ 3 (CMA), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Michael David Winter, and Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance Co., Intervenor-Appellant v. Brenner Tank, Inc. And Bar-Bel Fabricating Co., Inc.
See Rousseau v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, *471 Inc., 812 F.2d 971, 972 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
General Electric Co. v. Hoechst Celanese Corp.
Therefore defendants must “show that each element of the claim in issue is found in a prior patent or publication, either expressly or under principles of inherency,” Tyler Refrigeration, 777 F.2d at 689 ; see Verdegaal Brothers, Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631-32 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987), and that “one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the publication’s description of the invention with his own knowledge to make the claimed invention.” In re Donohue, 766 F.2d at 533 .
cited
Cited "see"
Richard Deloach, Cross-Appellant v. Delchamps, Inc., Cross-Appellee. Richard Deloach v. Delchamps, Inc.
See Rousseau v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 812 F.2d 971, 972 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Maria Mireles, Cross-Appellees v. Frio Foods, Inc., Cross-Appellant
See Rousseau v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 805 F.2d 1245, 1247-48 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Reynolds
See United States v. Hicks, 24 MJ 3, 7 (CMA), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987).
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Bradley
See United States v. Hicks, 24 MJ 3 (CMA), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 95 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lauture
See also United States v. Hicks, 24 M.J. 3 (C.M.A.), cert, denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 55 (1987); Elvine, 16 M.J. 14 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Margaret C. Wagner, by Her Next Friend George M. Wagner v. Fair Acres Geriatric Center. Margaret Wagner, by Her Next Friend, George M. Wagner
See also Rousseau v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 812 F.2d 971, 972 (5th Cir.) (affirming grant of new trial even though there was “legally sufficient evidence to support the verdict, thus foreclosing a j.n.o.v.”), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ecolochem, Inc. v. Southern California Edison Co.
See, e.g., Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 633 (Fed.Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987) (stating that defendant “did not have the additional burden of proving that [the prior art] recognized [all of the] capabilities” of the claimed process); King, 801 F.2d at 1326 ; H.K.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Berry v. County of Sonoma
See, e.g., Rousseau v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 805 F.2d 1245, 1248 (5th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 , 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987); Clay, 753 F.Supp. at 629 ; Renfro, 729 F.Supp. at 751-52 . 11 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Roebuck, Dr. James R. v. Drexel University
American Bearing Co., 729 F.2d at 948 n. 11; see, e.g., Rousseau v. Teledyne Movible Offshore, Inc., 812 F.2d 971, 972 (5th Cir.) (affirming grant of new trial even though there was “legally sufficient evidence to support the verdict, thus foreclosing a j.n.o. v.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 95 , 98 L.Ed.2d 56 (1987); 9 Wright & Miller § 2539 at 608 (“In many instances the judge might grant a new trial on th[e] ground [that the verdict is against the *736 weight of the evidence] even though he is constrained to refuse to order judgment [n.o.v.].”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Fondel
v.
Ford Motor Co.
v.
Ford Motor Co.
No. 86-1995.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1987.
Published
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.