Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Co., 376 U.S. 905 (1964). · Go Syfert
Brulotte Et Al. v. Thys Co., 376 U.S. 905 (1964). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
150 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 43 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jones v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (dcd, 1996-10-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1964 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1964 1995 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Jones v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
D.D.C. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bailey v. Patterson, 323 F.2d 201, 205-06 (5th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 (1964) (inflexible, undeviating official policy of segregation dictates that injunction cover all persons similarly situated).
discussed Cited "see" Elizabeth Dole v. Local 427, International Union Of Electrical, Radio And Machine Workers, Afl-Cio
3rd Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nabors v. NLRB, 323 F.2d 686, 688 (5th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 911 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 (1964) ("NLRB" does not exist for the adjudication of 'private rights,' it acts in a public capacity to give effect to the declared public policy of the Act to eliminate and prevent obstructions to interstate commerce by enlarging collective bargaining) 10 See B.
discussed Cited "see" Dole v. Local 427, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers
3rd Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nabors v. NLRB, 323 F.2d 686, 688 (5th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 911 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 (1964) ("NLRB” does not exist for the adjudication of 'private rights,' it acts in a public capacity to give effect to the declared public policy of the Act to eliminate and prevent obstructions to interstate commerce by enlarging collective bargaining). .See B.
discussed Cited "see" Georgia Association of Retarded Citizens, Cross v. Dr. Charles McDaniel Etc., Cross-Appellees (2×)
11th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Carpenter v. Davis, 424 F.2d 257, 260 (5th Cir.1970), Bailey v. Patterson, 323 F.2d 201 (5th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 (1964); Ladd v. Dairyland County Mutual Insurance Company of Texas, 96 F.R.D. 335 (N.D.
discussed Cited "see" Cook v. Luckett
S.D. Miss. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bailey v. Patterson, 323 F.2d 201 , 206 cert. denied, 376 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 (1963) (class action not necessary); Cousins v. City Council of City of Chicago, 466 F.2d 830, 845 (7th Cir.) cert. denied. 409 U.S. 893 , 93 S.Ct. 85 , 34 L.Ed.2d 181 (1972) (in municipal redistricting ease court held that although reapportionment litigation affects interests of large class and such actions are usually brought as class actions, the class action device is not essential).
cited Cited "see" Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary, United States Department of Labor v. Square D Company
5th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See Nabors v. NLRB, 323 F.2d 686 (5th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 911 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 (1964). 7 .
discussed Cited "see" Sandford v. R. L. Coleman Realty Co.
4th Cir. · 1978 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Bailey v. Patterson (5th Cir. 1963) 323 F.2d 201, 206 , cert. denied 376 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 , where the Court in a discrimination case, said that “whether or not appellants may properly represent all Negroes similarly situated, the decree to which they are entitled is the same.” This ruling was reaffirmed in United Farm, of Fla. H.
discussed Cited "see" United States v. Eric Hall
5th Cir. · 1973 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bailey v. Patterson, 5 Cir. 1963, 323 F.2d 201, 206 , cert. denied, 1963, 376 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 ; Unemployed Workers Union v. Hackett, 1971, D.R.I., 332 F.Supp. 1372 , 1379 n. 3; Snyder v. Board of Trustees, 1968, N.D.Ill., 286 F.Supp. 927 .
cited Cited "see" United States v. Kirksey McCord Nix, Jr.
5th Cir. · 1972 · signal: see · confidence high
See Addison v. United States, 5 Cir., 1963, 317 F.2d 808 , cert. denied, 376 U. S. 905 , 84 S.Ct. 658 , 11 L.Ed.2d 605 (1964); Greenhill v. United States, 5 Cir., 1962, 298 F.2d 405 .
cited Cited "see" Thomas L. Jenkins v. United Gas Corporation and Allan B. Caldwell
5th Cir. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bailey v. Patterson, 5 Cir., 1963, 323 F.2d 201 , cert, denied, City of Jackson v. Bailey, 1964, 376 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 . 12 .
cited Cited "see" Powelton Civic Home Owners Ass'n Ex Rel. Hilburn Harbidge v. Department of Housing & Urban Development
E.D. Pa. · 1968 · signal: see · confidence high
See Bailey v. Patterson, 323 F.2d 201, 205-206 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied City of Jackson v. Patterson, 376 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 (1963).
discussed Cited "see" United States v. William J. Rochelle, Jr., Trustee in Bankruptcy for John Milton Addison, Bankrupt (2×)
5th Cir. · 1967 · signal: see · confidence high
See Addison v. United States, 5 Cir. 1963, 317 F.2d 808 , cert. denied, 376 U.S. 905 , 84 S.Ct. 658 , 11 L.Ed.2d 605 , reh. denied, 376 U.S. 966 , 84 S.Ct. 1121 , 11 L.Ed.2d 984 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Ochoa, Abel Revill
Tex. Crim. App. · 2005 · signal: see also · confidence low
See United States v. Mickens , 837 F.Supp. 745 (S.D.W.Va. 1993), aff'd , 53 F.3d 329 (4 th Cir. 1995) and authorities cited therein (discussing general rule that "[u]less the unintelligible portions are so substantial as to render the recording as a whole untrustworthy the recording is admissible, and the decision should be left to the sound discretion of the trial judge"); see also Addison v. United States , 317 F.2d 808, 815 (5 th Cir. 1963), cert. denied , 376 U.S. 905 (1964) (trial court did not abuse its discretion to admit tape-recorded conversation even though one-half of tape was inaud…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hernandez v. Reno
5th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Bailey v. Patterson, 323 F.2d 201 (5th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 (1964) (refusing to reach the propriety of certifying a class action where the plaintiff seeks desegregation because the nature of the right sought to be vindicated requires the decree to run to the benefit of others similarly situated); United Farmworkers v. City of Delray Beach, Fla., 493 F.2d 799 (5th Cir.1974) (same)
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Robert Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District
5th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1771 (1972); see also Bailey v. Patterson, 323 F.2d 201 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 (1964); see generally Developments in the Law-Class Actions, 89 Harv.L.Rev. 1318, 1486-87 (1976) 33 There may also be disagreement among class members over appropriate relief.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Horton ex rel. Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District
5th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1771 (1972); see also Bailey v. Patterson, 323 F.2d 201 (5th Cir. 1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 (1964); see generally Developments in the Law — Class Actions, 89 Harv.L.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Horton ex rel. Horton v. Goose Creek Independent School District
5th Cir. · 1982 · signal: see also · confidence low
Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1771 (1972); see also Bailey v. Patterson, 5 Cir. 1963, 323 F.2d 201 , cert. denied, 1964, 376 U.S. 910 , 84 S.Ct. 666 , 11 L.Ed.2d 609 ; see generally Developments in the Law — Class Actions, 89 Harv.L.Rev. 1318, 1486-87 (1976). .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Walter C. Brulotte
v.
Thys Company
707.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 17, 1964.
376 U.S. 905
Edward S. Irons for petitioners. George W. Wilkins for respondent.
Published

The petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Washington is granted limited to Questions 1 and 2 presented by the petition which read as follows:

“1. Whether it is a misuse to include in a license agreement a provision which perpetuates the monopoly of a licensed patent by a requirement that royalties be paid for the use of the invention after the patent has expired and the invention had been dedicated to the public.
“2. Whether it is a misuse or an antitrust violation to include in a license agreement a provision which extends the monopoly of a patent to unpatented subject matter by a provision which requires the payment of post-expiration royalties.”