green
Positive treatment
5.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 1975 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1975
2000
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 26 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Multistate Legal Studies, Inc. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal And Professional Publications, Inc.
But see Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 367 F.Supp. 258, 347 (1973) (refusing to second-guess technological justifiability of integrating more internal memory into computer's central processing unit where integration reduced costs and increased utility), rev'd on other grounds, 510 F.2d 894 (10th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975). 1) Purpose of product change 66 PMBR has offered evidence that the bundling was a response to PMBR's refusal to take part in a proposed market allocation agreement, see Plaintiff-Appellant's App. at 193-94 (Summary); that Defendants'…
discussed
Cited "but see"
Multistate Legal Studies, Inc. v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Legal & Professional Publications, Inc.
But see Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 367 F.Supp. 258, 347 (1973) (refusing to second-guess technological justifiability of integrating more internal memory into computer’s central processing unit where integration reduced costs and increased utility), rev’d on other grounds, 510 F.2d 894 (10th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975). 1)Purpose of product change PMBR has offered evidence that the bundling was a response to PMBR’s refusal to take part in a proposed market allocation agreement, see Plaintiff-Appellant’s App. at 193-94 (Summary); that Defenda…
cited
Cited "but see"
Dealy v. Heckler
But see Gendron v. Saxbe, 389 F.Supp. 1303, 1305-06 (C.D.Cal.) (three-judge ct.), aff’d sub nom Gendron v. Levi, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 9 , 46 L.Ed.2d 23 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Keene Corp. v. Acstar Insurance (In Re Keene Corp.)
See Jamaica Savings Bank v. Lefkowitz, 390 F.Supp. 1357, 1363 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 10 , 46 L.Ed.2d 23 (1975); Creel v. Birmingham Trust National Bank, 383 F.Supp. 871, 879 (N.D.Ala.1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir.1975); In re Simon, 167 F.Supp. 214, 215 (E.D.N.Y.1958); In re Treiling, 21 B.R. 940, 943 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1982); Valerio v. College Point Savings Bank, 48 Misc.2d 91, 92 , 264 N.Y.S.2d 343, 344 (Sup.Ct.
cited
Cited "see"
Smalley & Co. v. Emerson & Cuming, Inc.
See Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 510 F.2d 894 , 917 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc. v. Feist Publications, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellee
See Cackling Acres, Inc. v. Olson Farms, Inc., 541 F.2d 242, 246 (10th Cir.1976) (geographic area), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1122 , 97 S.Ct. 1158 , 51 L.Ed.2d 572 (1977), and Telex Corp. v. IBM, 510 F.2d 894 , 914 (10th Cir.) (product area), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Association of Independent Television Stations, Inc. v. the College Football Ass'n
Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509 , 1514 n. 4 (10th Cir.1984); aff'd, — U.S.-, 105 S.Ct. 2847 , 86 L.Ed.2d 467 (1985); Jicarilla Apoxhe Tribe v. Supron Energy Corp., 728 F.2d 1555, 1561 (10th Cir.1984), reversed on other grounds, 782 F.2d 855 (10th Cir.1986) (en banc); see Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 510 F.2d 894 , 915 (10th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975); ABA Antitrust Section, Antitrust Law Developments 110-11 (2d ed. 1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Research, Analysis, & Development, Inc. v. United States
See Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 510 F.2d 894, 929, 931 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 224 . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Hasset v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield (In Re O.P.M. Leasing Services, Inc.)
See Jamaica Savings Bank v. Lefkowitz, 390 F.Supp. 1357, 1363 (E.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 10 , 46 L.Ed.2d 23 (1975); Creel v. Birmingham Trust National Bank, 383 F.Supp. 871, 879 (N.D.Ala.1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 1363 (5th Cir.1975); In re Simon, 167 F.Supp. 214, 215 (E.D.N.Y.1958); In re Treiling, 21 B.R. 940, 943 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1982); Valerio v. College Point Savings Bank, 48 Misc.2d 91, 92 , 264 N.Y.S.2d 343, 344 (Sup.Ct.Suffolk Co.1965).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aspen Highlands Skiing Corporation v. Aspen Skiing Company
See Telex Corp. v. IBM, 510 F.2d 894 , 915 (10th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975); see also Borough of Lansdale v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 692 F.2d 307, 311 (3d Cir.1982); Pinder v. Hudgins Fish Co., 570 F.2d 1209, 1220-21 (5th Cir.1978); Sulmeyer v. Coca Cola Co., 515 F.2d 835, 839 (5th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 934 , 98 S.Ct. 1148 , 47 L.Ed.2d 341 (1976); ABA Antitrust Section, Antitrust Law Developments 110-11 (2d ed. 1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co.
See Telex Corp. v. IBM, 510 F.2d 894 , 915 (10th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975); see also Borough of Lansdale v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 692 F.2d 307, 311 (3d Cir.1982); Finder v. Hudgins Fish Co., 570 F.2d 1209, 1220-21 (5th Cir.1978); Sulmeyer v. Coca Cola Co., 515 F.2d 835, 839 (5th Cir.1975), ce rt. denied, 424 U.S. 934 , 98 S.Ct. 1148 , 47 L.Ed.2d 341 (1976); ABA Antitrust Section, Antitrust Law Developments 110-11 (2d ed. 1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles O. Finley & Co.
See, Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 510 F.2d 894, 915 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1976); and Sulmeyer v. Coca-Cola Company, 515 F.2d 835, 849 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 934 , 96 S.Ct. 1148 , 47 L.Ed.2d 341 (1976).
discussed
Cited "see"
Twin City Sportservice, Inc. v. Charles O. Finley & Company, Inc.
See, Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 510 F.2d 894, 915 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1976); and Sulmeyer v. Coca-Cola Company, 515 F.2d 835, 849 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 934 , 96 S.Ct. 1148 , 47 L.Ed.2d 341 (1976).
cited
Cited "see"
White & White, Inc. v. American Hospital Supply Corp.
See Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 510 F.2d 894, 925-926 (10th Cir.), cert. dismissed 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
Computer Print Systems, Inc. v. Lewis
See Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 510 F.2d 894 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975) (computer software); Nucor Corp. v. Tennessee Forging Steel Service, Inc., 476 F.2d 386 (8th Cir. 1973) (blue prints); Morgan’s Home Equipment Corp. v. Martucci, 390 Pa. 618 , 136 A.2d 838 (1957) (customer list); Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Standard Steel Car Co., 210 Pa. 464 , 60 A. 4 (1904) (blue prints).
discussed
Cited "see"
Oahu Gas Service, Inc. v. Pacific Resources, Inc.
See Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 367 F.Supp. 258, 359 (N.D.Okl. 1973) (a federal antitrust suit in which the district court applied an Oklahoma statute providing that a counterclaim is not barred by the statute of limitations unless the complaint is so barred to determine the timeliness of a counterclaim based on state law), rev’d in part on other grounds, 510 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Berkey Photo, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross v. Eastman Kodak Company, Defendant-Appellant-Cross
(2×)
See Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 510 F.2d 894, 925-26 (10th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Mrs. Smith's Pie Co.
See Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 510 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1976); Mogul v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.Supp. 1305 (E.D.Pa.1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
McCallum v. Allstate Property & Cas. Ins. Co.
Trade Secrets Act § 1 cmt. (amended 1985), 14 U.L.A. 529, 538 (2005); see also Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 510 F.2d 894 , cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975) (trade secrets may include information regarding unmarketed product); P.A.W.S., 125 Wash.2d at 262 , 884 P.2d 592 (unfunded grant proposals can be trade secrets). ¶ 23 In Woo v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, 137 Wash.App. 480 , 154 P.3d 236 , rev'd in part on other grounds, 161 Wash.2d 43 , 164 P.3d 454 (2007), Division One of this court addressed whether Fireman's insurance claim manuals deserved protec…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
City of Chanute, Kan. v. Williams Natural Gas Co.
Westman Com’n Co. v. Hobart Intern., Inc., 796 F.2d 1216, 1221 (10th Cir.1986); see also, Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 510 F.2d 894, 919 (10th Cir.1975), ce rt. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975) (held the trial court’s narrow definition of the relevant product market was plain error in light of the evidence of cross-elasticity and interchangeable quality of the products).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Advisory Information & Management Systems, Inc. v. Prime Computer, Inc.
See, e.g., Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 510 F.2d 894 , 914-19 (10th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802, 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975) (compatible computer peripherals do not constitute a relevant market). 7 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Transamerica Computer Company, Inc., a Corporation v. International Business MacHines Corporation, a Corporation
(2×)
See also Telex Corp. v. IBM, 510 F.2d 894 , 902, 906 (10th Cir.1975), rev’g 367 F.Supp. 258 (N.D.Okla.1973), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Moor-Law, Inc.
See also Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp., 367 F.Supp. 258, 361 (N.D.Okl.1973), rev’d on other grounds, 510 F.2d 894 (10th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 *363 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975); Remick Music Corp. v. Interstate Hotel Co., 58 F.Supp. 523, 531 (D.Neb.1944), aff’d, 157 F.2d 744 (8th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 329 U.S. 809 , 67 S.Ct. 622 , 91 L.Ed. 691 (1947).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Van Dyk Research Corp. v. Xerox Corp.
See also Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 510 F.2d 894 , 927 (10th Cir.), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Memorex Corp. v. International Business Machines Corp.
See, e. g., Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines, Inc., 367 F.Supp. 258, 348-55 (N.D.Okl.1973), rev’d on other grounds, 510 F.2d 894 (10 Cir.), cert, dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975) (misappropriation of defendant’s designs may reduce damages but does not remove standing to bring an antitrust action); Mason City Tent & Awning Co. v. Clapper, 144 F.Supp. 754 (W.D.Mo. 1956) (plaintiff as patent infringer could not recover full lost profits). 4 Such confusion results from a failure to distinguish such defenses from the other equitable defenses.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Memorex Corporation v. International Business Machines Corporation
See, e. g., Telex Corp. v. International Business Machines, Inc., 367 F.Supp. 258, 348-55 (N.D.Okl.1973), rev'd on other grounds, 510 F.2d 894 (10 Cir.), cert. dismissed, 423 U.S. 802 , 96 S.Ct. 8 , 46 L.Ed.2d 244 (1975) (misappropriation of defendant's designs may reduce damages but does not remove standing to bring an antitrust action); Mason City Tent & Awning Co. v. Clapper, 144 F.Supp. 754 (W.D.Mo.1956) (plaintiff as patent infringer could not recover full lost profits). 4 18 Such confusion results from a failure to distinguish such defenses from the other equitable defenses.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Telex Corp.
v.
International Business Machines Corp.
v.
International Business Machines Corp.
No. 74-1518.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1975.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari dismissed October 3, 1975, under this Court’s Rule 60.