green
Positive treatment
3.7 score
Treatment trajectory · 1979 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1979
2002
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Walton
See State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978), overruled on other grounds by Sours v. State, 593 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Mo. banc 1980); State v. Taylor, 67 S.W.3d 713, 716 (Mo.App.2002); State v. Olney, 954 S.W.2d 698, 700-01 (Mo.App.1997).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Sumlin
(2×)
See State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646, 651 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978). [6] This test has its roots in earlier cases dealing with greater and lesser included offenses, Harris v. Oklahoma, 433 U.S. 682 , 97 S.Ct. 2912 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1054 (1977); Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). [7] While the Blockburger test is only an aid to statutory construction which does not apply when the legislature clearly intends to permit multiple punishments, see Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 365-69 , 103 S.Ct. 673, 678-79 , 7…
cited
Cited "see"
Association for Intercollegiate Athletics for Women v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n
See Smithkline Corporation v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1065 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see"
Larry V. Muko, Inc. v. Southwestern Pennsylvania Building And Construction Trades Council
See Brown Shoe, supra. As this Court held in SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 575 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978): 55 defining a relevant product market is a process of describing those groups of producers which, because of the similarity of their products, have the ability-actual or potential-to take significant amounts of business away from each other.
discussed
Cited "see"
Larry V. Muko, Inc. v. Southwestern Pennsylvania Building & Construction Trades Council
See Brown Shoe, supra. As this Court held in SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 575 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978): defining a relevant product market is a process of describing those groups of producers which, because of the similarity of their products, have the ability — actual or potential — to take significant amounts of business away from each other.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Gant
See generally State v. Treadway, 558 S.W.2d 646 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978); and State v. Valentine, 584 S.W.2d 92 , handed down July 17, 1979, by Supreme Court of Missouri, en banc. 3 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Davis v. Velez
See also Miller v. Harvey, 566 F.2d 879 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978) (denying habeas relief where juror bit another juror on the arm to see what bruise would result and the jurors observed the bite mark for several hours before returning their verdict of guilty); United States v. Hephner, 410 F.2d 930 (7th Cir.1969) (upholding conviction where “jury conducted an experiment in the jury room by having [a] juror cover his head and put on sunglasses, in a manner similar to that alluded to in testimony,” because “[jjurors must be given enou…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Aquatherm Industries, Inc. v. Florida Power & Light Co.
See also Smith-Kline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1063 (3d Cir.) (describing the relevant product market as “those groups of producers which, because of the similarity of their products, have the ability — actual or potential — to take significant amounts of business away from each other”), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Yeager's Fuel, Inc. v. Pennsylvania Power & Light Co.
See also SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1063 (3d Cir.) (describing the relevant product market as “those groups of producers which, because of the similarity of their products, have the ability — actual or potential — to take significant amounts of business away from each other”), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Town Sound & Custom Tops, Inc. v. Chrysler Motor Corp.
Specifically, a product market is “composed of products that have reasonable interchangeability for the purposes for which they are produced — price, use and qualities considered.” United States v. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 404 , 76 S.Ct. 994, 1012 , 100 L.Ed. 1264 (1956); Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 , 82 S.Ct. 1502 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962); see also SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1063 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hudson's Bay Co. Fur Sales Inc. v. American Legend Co-Op.
See, e.g., Smithkline Corp. v. Eli lilly & Co., 427 F.Supp. 1089, 1094-1110 (E.D.Pa.1976), aff'd, 575 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978); United States v. Brown Shoe Co., 179 F.Supp. 721 (E.D.Mo.1959), aff'd, 370 U.S. 294 , 82 S.Ct. 1502 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962); United States v. International Boxing Club of N.Y., 150 F.Supp. 397, 401-419 (S.D.N.Y.1957), aff'd, 358 U.S. 242 , 79 S.Ct. 245 , 3 L.Ed.2d 270 (1959).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States Football League v. National Football League
(2×)
It is well-settled that the definition of a relevant product market “turns on discovering patterns of trade which are followed in practice.” United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F.Supp. 295, 303 (D.Mass.1953), aff'd per curiam, 347 U.S. 521 , 74 S.Ct. 699 , 98 L.Ed. 910 (1954); see, e.g., SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 427 F.Supp. 1089, 1118 (E.D.Pa.1976), aff'd, 575 F.2d 1056 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978) (relevant product market defined by reference to current consumer-physician practices); see generally ABA Antitrust Sect…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Raul International Corp. v. Sealed Power Corp.
See, e.g., SmithKline Corp. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 575 F.2d 1056, 1062-63 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 123 , 58 L.Ed.2d 134 (1978).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Ozzie Lee Avery, Jr.
United States v. Hephner, 410 F.2d 930, 936 (7th Cir.1969); see also Miller v. Harvey, 566 F.2d 879, 881 (4th Cir.1977), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 838 , 99 S.Ct. 124 , 58 L.Ed.2d 135 (1978).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
North by Northwest Civic Assn., Inc.
v.
Cates
v.
Cates
No. 77-1857.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 2, 1978.
Published
Sup. Ct. Ga. Certiorari denied.