green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.2 score
“the existence of honest doubt concerning the validity of a patent precludes a finding of willfulness.”
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Endress + Hauser, Inc. v. Hawk Measurement Systems Pty. Ltd.
the existence of honest doubt concerning the validity of a patent precludes a finding of willfulness.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Foster
See State v. Hansford, 76 Kan. 678 , 92 P. 551 (1907) (it is within the district court’s discretion to discharge a jury and order a mistrial), overruled on other grounds State v. Sandstrom, 225 Kan. 717 , 595 P.2d 324 , cert. denied 444 U.S. 942 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mumford v. GNC FRANCHISING LLC
See Bishop, 403 F.Supp.2d at 420 (citing, for example, Security Tire & Rubber Co. v. Gates Rubber Co., 598 F.2d 962, 967 (5th Cir.1979) (“transfers between parent and wholly owned subsidiary are not the type of transactions the Robinson-Pat-man Act meant to regulate”), cert denied, 444 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 298 , 62 L.Ed.2d 309 (1979)); see also Russ’ Kwik Car Wash v. Marathon Petroleum Co., 772 F.2d 214, 221 (6th Cir.1985); City of Mount Pleasant, Iowa v. Assoc.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bishop v. GNC FRANCHISING LLC
See Security Tire & Rubber Co. v. Gates Rubber Co., 598 F.2d 962, 967 (5th Cir.1979) (“transfers between parent and wholly-owned subsidiary are not the type of transactions the Robinson-Patman Act meant to regulate”), cert denied, 444 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 298 , 62 L.Ed.2d 309 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Totten, Unpublished Decision (2-15-2001)
See State v. Robinson (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 478 , certiorari denied (1979), 444 U.S. 942 , citing South Dakota v. Opperman (1976), 428 U.S. 364 ; Carroll v. United States (1925), 267 U.S. 132 ; New York v. Belton (1981), 453 U.S. 454 ; United States v. Ross (1982), 456 U.S. 798 .
discussed
Cited "see"
Williamson v. Gane
(2×)
See Frakes v. Hunt, 266 Ark. 171 , 583 S.W.2d 497 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 297 , 62 L.Ed.2d 309 (1979); In re Estate of Rudder, 78 Ill.App.3d 517 , 34 Ill.Dec. 100 , 397 N.E.2d 556 (1979); Pendleton v. Pendleton, 560 S.W.2d 538 (Ky.1978); In re Estate of Sharp, 151 N.J.Super. 579 , 377 A.2d 730 (1977), aff'd as modified, 163 N.J.Super. 148 , 394 A.2d 381 (1978); Winn v. Lackey, 618 S.W.2d 910 (Tex.Civ.App.1981).
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Mitchell
See State v. Sandstrom, 225 Kan. 717 , 595 P.2d 324 , cert. denied 444 U.S. 942 (1979); State v. Roth, 207 Kan. 691, 486 P.2d 1385 (1971); Manufacturing Co. v. Bridge Co., 81 Kan. 616 , 106 Pac. 1034 (1910).
discussed
Cited "see"
Howell Industries, Inc. v. Sharon Steel Corp.
See Security Tire & Rubber Co. v. Gates Rubber Co., 598 F.2d 962 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 298 , 62 L.Ed.2d 309 (1979); Parrish v. Cox, 586 F.2d 9 (6th Cir. 1978); Brown v. Hansen Publications, Inc., 556 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1977); Brewer v. Uniroyal, Inc., 498 F.2d 973 , 977 n.2 (6th Cir. 1974).
cited
Cited "see"
Coal Processing Equipment, Inc. v. Campbell
See Eltra Corp. v. Basic, Inc., 599 F.2d 745, 758 (6th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 297 , 62 L.Ed.2d 308 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mitchelson v. Travelers Insurance
(2×)
See State v. Sandstrom, 225 Kan. 717 , 595 P.2d 324 , cert. denied 444 U.S. 942 (1979).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Verser
Compare State v. Lopez, 271 Kan. 119, 132 , 22 P.3d 1040 (2001) (waiver ineffective when counsel purported to waive defendant’s right without discussion), with State v. Sandstrom, 225 Kan. 717, 722 , 595 P.2d 324 (waiver effective when undisputed that defendant, through counsel, waived right to be present at hearings), ce rt. denied 444 U.S. 942 (1979).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Caribe BMW, Inc. v. Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft
See also Security Tire & Rubber Co. v. Gates Rubber Co., 598 F.2d 962, 966 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 298 , 62 L.Ed.2d 309 (1980).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
USM Corp. v. Detroit Plastic Molding Co.
See also Eltra Corporation v. Basic Incorporated, 599 F.2d 745, 750 (6th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 942 , 100 S.Ct. 297 , 62 L.Ed.2d 308 (1979), wherein the Court held that it was error to require the defendant to prove its case by “clear and convincing evidence” in the “typical case,” “where the bulk of the evidence of the prior art is contained in documents.” The Court noted that the higher standard of proof “may apply to the unusual case, such as where the evidence may be of an inherently unreliable nature [citation omitted] or where fraud is alleged.” Id. at 750-51.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sandstrom
v.
Kansas
v.
Kansas
No. 79-402.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Nov 5, 1979.
Published
Citer courts: S.D. Indiana (1)
Sup. Ct. Kan. Cer-tiorari denied.