green
Positive treatment
3.6 score
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Novello, M.D. v. Randall, M.D.
See Hospah Coal Co. v. Chaco Energy C o ., 673 F.2d 1161 , 1163 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 456 U.S. 1007 (1982); Barber-Greene Co. v. Blaw-Knox Co . , 239 F.2d 774, 778 (6th Cir. 1957); American Modern Home Ins.
discussed
Cited "see"
Novello v. Randall
See Hospah Coal Co. v. Chaco Energy Co., 673 F.2d 1161 , 1163 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 2299 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1302 (1982); Barber-Greene Co. v. Blaw-Knox Co., 239 F.2d 774, 778 (6th Cir.1957); American Modern Home Ins. v. Insured Accounts Co., 704 F.Supp. 128, 129 (S.D.Ohio 1988).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hill's Pet Products v. A.S.U., Inc.
See, e.g., Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown, 348 F.2d 689, 692 (10th Cir.1965); see abo Hospah Coal Co. v. Chaco Energy Co., 673 F.2d 1161, 1164 (10th Cir.) (court that first obtains jurisdiction should be allowed to first decide issues of venue), ce rt. denied, 456 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 2299 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1302 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Richard A. Vaughn, Dds, P.C. v. Frederick G. Baldwin
And “when the basis for search or seizure is consent, the government must conform to the limitations placed upon the right granted to search, seize or retain the papers or effects.” Mason, 557 F.2d at 429 ; accord, United States v. Blue Diamond Coal Co., 667 F.2d 510, 524 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 2298 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1302 (1982) (Keith, J., dissenting).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp.
See, e.g., Bott, 807 F.2d at 1572 , 1 USPQ2d at 1213; Yarway Corp. v. Eur-Control USA, Inc., 775 F.2d 268, 277 , 227 USPQ 352, 358 (Fed.Cir.1985); accord Lam, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 668 F.2d 462, 474-75 , 213 USPQ 1061, 1071 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 2298 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1302 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ryco, Inc., Plaintiff/counterdefendant/appellant v. Ag-Bag Corporation, Defendant/counterclaimant/cross-Appellant v. Kelly P. Ryan and Blair Manufacturing Company, Counterdefendants/appellants, Richard H. Lee and David H. Rasmussen
See, e.g., Bott, 807 F.2d at 1572 , 1 USPQ2d at 1213; Yarway Corp. v. Eur-Control USA, Inc., 775 F.2d 268, 277 , 227 USPQ 352, 358 (Fed.Cir.1985); accord Lam, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 668 F.2d 462, 474-75 , 213 USPQ 1061, 1071 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 2298 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1302 (1982). 137 Another circumstance to consider is whether Ryco deliberately copied Ag-Bag's patented device.
cited
Cited "see"
Environmental Instruments, Inc. v. Sutron Co.
See Lam, Inc. v. *211 Johns-Manville Corp., 668 F.2d 462 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 2298 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1302 (1982). 9 .
cited
Cited "see"
Frank D. Gentile v. The Youngstown Steel Door Co. And National City Bank
See UAW Local 134 v. Yard-Man, Inc., 716 F.2d 1467, 1479 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1007 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Carella v. Starlight Archery
See generally, Lam, Inc. v. Johns-Manville Corp., 668 F.2d 462 (10th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 2298 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1302 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
Gathercole v. Global Associates
See Smallwood v. United Air Lines, 661 F.2d 303 , 307 (4th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 2299 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1302 (1982); Harriss v. Pan American World Airways, 649 F.2d 670 , 676-77 (9th Cir.1980); Criswell v. Western Air Lines, 514 F.Supp. 384 , 389 & n. 7 (C.D.Cal.1981). 6 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Stranger Creek v. Dakotah, Inc.
See, e.g., Orthmann v. Apple River Campground, Inc., 765 F.2d 119, 121 (8th Cir.1985); West Gulf Maritime Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local 21, 751 F.2d 721, 729 (5th Cir.1985); Heatron, Inc. v. Shackelford, 898 F.Supp. 1491, 1494 (D.Kan.1995); see also Hospah Coal Co. v. Chaco Energy Co., 673 F.2d 1161, 1163 (10th Cir.), cert, denied, 456 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 2299 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1302 (1982) (recognizing general rule that “when two courts have concurrent jurisdiction, the first court in which jurisdiction attaches has priority to consider the case”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Victor Co., L.L.C. v. Ortho Organizers, Inc.
“A Federal District Court which first obtains jurisdiction of parties and issues may preserve its jurisdiction by enjoining proceedings involving the same issues and parties, begun thereafter in another Federal District Court.” Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co., 180 F.2d 97, 101 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 340 U.S. 816 , 71 S.Ct. 46 , 95 L.Ed. 600 (1950); see also Hospah Coal Co. v. Chaco Energy Co., 673 F.2d 1161, 1164 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 1007 , 102 S.Ct. 2299 , 73 L.Ed.2d 1302 (1982) (court which first obtains jurisdiction should be allowed to first decide issu…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Cobbs
v.
Virginia
v.
Virginia
No. 81-1858.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jun 1, 1982.
Published
Cir. Ct. Henrico County, Va. Certiorari denied.