green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.9 score
“undeniably, the decision of the circuit court in a prior appeal must be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same ease under the law of the case doctrine.”
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993
2009
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
New Breed Leasing Corporation, and v. National Labor Relations Board, And
(2×)
undeniably, the decision of the circuit court in a prior appeal must be followed in all subsequent proceedings in the same ease under the law of the case doctrine.
discussed
Cited "see"
Herrington v. County of Sonoma
See Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1404 (9th Cir.) (“An order issued after remand may deviate from the mandate ... if it is not counter to the spirit of the circuit court’s decision!, but t]he district court must be given a meaningful opportunity to follow the directive of the circuit in resolving the issues.”) (internal citation omitted), cert, de nied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 64 , 126 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see"
John S. Herrington David S. Herrington Quail Hill Ranch v. County of Sonoma, John S. Herrington David S. Herrington, and Quail Hill Ranch Co., a Partnership v. County of Sonoma, John S. Herrington David S. Herrington Quail Hill Ranch v. County of Sonoma
See Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1404 (9th Cir.) ("An order issued after remand may deviate from the mandate ... if it is not counter to the spirit of the circuit court's decision[, but t]he district court must be given a meaningful opportunity to follow the directive of the circuit in resolving the issues.") (internal citation omitted), cert.denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 64 , 126 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993). 15 Because the mandate in the instant case provided for a new trial on the issue of damages, the rule of mandate did not in and of itself serve to preclude the district court f…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Securacomm Consulting Inc. v. Securacom Inc.
Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc., 435 F.2d 656, 662 (2d Cir.1970) (citation omitted); see also Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816, 823 (5th Cir.1998) (“willful infringement carries a connotation of deliberate intent to deceive.”) (quoting Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 815 , 114 S.Ct. 64 , 126 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Securacomm Consulting Inc. v. Securacom Incorporated Kuwam Corporation Wirt D. Walker, III v. Ronald S. Libengood Securacom Incorporated v. Ronald S. Libengood Clifford J. Ingber Securacom Incorporated Kuwam Corporation Wirt D. Walker, III
Bassett Co. v. Revlon, Inc., 435 F.2d 656, 662 (2d Cir.1970) (citation omitted); see also Rolex Watch USA, Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816, 823 (5th Cir.1998) ("willful infringement carries a connotation of deliberate intent to deceive.") (quoting Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 815 , 114 S.Ct. 64 , 126 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993)).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Maphia
Maier Brewing Co. v. Fleischmann Distilling Corp., 390 F.2d 117, 123-24 (9th Cir.1968) ce rt. denied, 391 U.S. 966 , 88 S.Ct. 2037 , 20 L.Ed.2d 879 (1968); see also Lindy Pen Co., Inc. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1405 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied 510 U.S. 815 , 114 S.Ct. 64 , 126 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Shakespeare Co. v. Silstar Corp. of America, Inc.
See also Lindy Pen Co. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1404-05 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 64 , 126 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993) (remand with instructions for district court “to order an accounting and to award damages and other relief as appropriate” did not preclude district court from determining that an accounting was inappropriate under the circumstances); Publishers Resource, Inc. v. Walker-Davis Pubs., Inc., 762 F.2d 557, 559 (7th Cir.1985) (remand “for a new trial on the issue of damages” did not preclude district court from deciding damages issue on summary judgment …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Dragon Pacific International George Sheng
See also Lindy Pen Co., Inc. v. Bic Pen Corp., 982 F.2d 1400, 1407-09 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 114 S.Ct. 64 , 126 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993); Playboy Enters. v. Baccarat Clothing Co., 692 F.2d 1272, 1274 (9th Cir.1982) (“[T]he trial court’s primary function should center on making any violations of the Lanham Act unprofitable to the infringing party.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lindy Pen Co., Inc.
v.
Bic Pen Corp
v.
Bic Pen Corp
92-1829.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 4, 1993.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Ninth Circuit (2)
Lindy Pen Co., Inc., et al.
v.
Bic Pen Corp.
No. 92-1829.
Supreme Court of United States.
October 4, 1993.
1
Appeal from the C. A. 9th Cir.
2
Certiorari denied. Reported below: 982 F. 2d 1400.