green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
4.1 score
“the wrong takes place not ... where the goods are wrapped in the misleading packages, but where the passing off occurs, i.e., where the deceived customer buys the defendant's product in the belief that he is buying the plaintiffs”
Treatment trajectory · 1956 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1956
1991
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 9 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cremi v. Brown
the place of the wrong is not where the fraudulent statement was made, but where the plaintiff, as a result thereof, suffered a loss
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Levi Strauss & Co.
sorenson survey
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Library Publications, Inc. v. Heartland Samplers, Inc.
the wrong takes place not ... where the goods are wrapped in the misleading packages, but where the passing off occurs, i.e., where the deceived customer buys the defendant's product in the belief that he is buying the plaintiffs
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Oral-B Laboratories, Inc. v. Mi-Lor Corp.
the wrong takes place not where the deceptive labels are affixed to the' goods or where the goods are wrapped in the misleading packages, but where the passing off occurs____
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Pain v. United Technologies Corp.
an american citizen does not have an absolute right under all circumstances to sue in an american court
cited
Cited "see"
Off-The-Wall Products v. Hyman Products, Inc.
See Vanity Fair Mills v. T Eaton Co., 234 F.2d 633, 639 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 871 , 77 S.Ct. 96 , 1 L.Ed.2d 76 (1956).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alvera M. Aldabe v. Charles D. Aldabe
See, e. g., Duling v. Markun, 231 F.2d 833 (CA7 1956), cert. denied 352 U.S. 870 , 77 S.Ct. 96 , 1 L.Ed.2d 76 ; Georgia Power Project v. Georgia Power Co., 409 F.Supp. 332, 336-37 (N.D.Ga.1975); Ciccarello v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 1 F.R.D. 491, 493-94 (S.D.W.Va.1940).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Green v. Karol
See also, e.g., Duling v. Markun (7th Cir. 1956), 231 F.2d 833 , cert. denied, 352 U.S. 870 , 77 S.Ct. 96 , 1 L.Ed.2d 76 ; Papagianakis v. The Samos (4th Cir. 1950), 186 F.2d 257 , cert. denied, 341 U.S. 921 , 71 S.Ct. 741 , 95 L.Ed. 1354 (1951).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wynder v. Lonergan
Evidentiary trial restrictions such as being bound by the answers of your witness and failing to object to unresponsive answers are not part of the discovery procedures. 8 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2152, at 472; see also Duling v. Markun (7th Cir. 1956), 231 F. 2d 833 (cert. den. 352 U.S. 870 , 77 S. Ct. 96 , 1 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Baumann
v.
Smrha, Chief Engineer, Division of Water Resources, Kansas State Board of Agriculture
v.
Smrha, Chief Engineer, Division of Water Resources, Kansas State Board of Agriculture
No. 285.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 15, 1956.
Kenneth G. Speir and Herbert H. Sizemore for appellants. John Anderson, Jr., Attorney General of Kansas, Paul E. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, and Warden L. Noe, Special Assistant Attorney General, for Smrha, and Robt. B. Morton and Paul J. Donaldson for the City of Wichita, appellees.
Jurisdiction, Reed, Would.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
Per Curiam:
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Reed and Mr. Justice Douglas would note probable jurisdiction.