green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
4.5 score
“it is unquestionably lawful for a person to gain possession, through proper means, of his competitor's product and, through inspection and analysis, create a duplicate unless, of course, the item is patented.”
Treatment trajectory · 1959 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1959
1992
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Alcatel USA Inc v. DGI Technologies Inc
it is unquestionably lawful for a person to gain possession, through proper means, of his competitor's product and, through inspection and analysis, create a duplicate unless, of course, the item is patented.
cited
Cited "see"
Kana Energy Services, Inc. v. Jiangsu Jinshi MacHinery Group Co. Ltd. D/B/A JMP Technologies, and Helios Oil & Gas Equipment LLC
See Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 314 S.W.2d 763, 768 (Tex. 1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 898 (1958).
cited
Cited "see"
Wellogix, Inc. v. Accenture, LLP
See Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 158 Tex. 566 , 314 S.W.2d 763, 776 (1958) (adopting Restatement of Torts § 757 (1939)), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 898 , 79 S.Ct. 223 , 3 L.Ed.2d 148 .
cited
Cited "see"
Seatrax, Inc. v. Sonbeck International, Inc.
See id. (citing Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 158 Tex. 566 , 314 S.W.2d 763, 776 (Tex.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 898 , 79 S.Ct. 223 , 3 L.Ed.2d 148 (1958)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Sassen v. Tanglegrove Townhouse Condominium Ass'n
See Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 158 Tex. 566 , 314 S.W.2d 763 (1958), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 898 , 79 S.Ct. 223 , 3 L.Ed.2d 148 (1958); InterFirst Bank Dallas, N.A. v. Risser, 739 S.W.2d 882 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 1987, no writ); Crutcher-Rolfs-Cummings, Inc. v. Ballard, 540 S.W.2d 380 ; Restatement (Seoond) of Agency §§ 399, 400, 401 cmt. a (1958).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Constantine v. State
(2×)
Doo-Noch-Keen, 2 Alaska at 628 ; see also Rustad v. United States, 258 F.2d 563, 565-67 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 898 , 79 S.Ct. 222 , 3 L.Ed.2d 149 (1958) (in prosecution for fishing in a closed area appellate court pointed out that sole issue submitted to jury was whether appellant's boat was fishing in a closed area; the court approved instructions informing jury that there was no need to prove intent and that the government need only prove an act in violation of the regulation).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hi-Line Electric Company v. Dowco Electrical Products
Id. at 1179 & 1180 n. 9; see also Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 158 Tex. 566 , 314 S.W.2d 763, 766 (adopting § 757 of the Restatement of Torts which provides that a “list of customers” may be a trade secret), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 898 , 79 S.Ct. 223 , 3 L.Ed.2d 148 (1958).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Interox America v. Ppg Industries, Inc.
See also Hyde Corp. v. Huffines, 158 Tex. 566 , 314 S.W.2d 763 , cert. denied, 358 U.S. 898 , 79 S.Ct. 223 , 3 L.Ed.2d 148 (1958).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Crimm
v.
Mississippi
v.
Mississippi
No. 427.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 24, 1958.
Supreme Court of Mississippi. Certiorari denied.