green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.0 score
“trial court ... has considerable discretion in determining whether ... to issue an injunction”
Treatment trajectory · 1986 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1986
2006
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
H.H. Robertson, Company v. United Steel Deck, Inc. And Nicholas J. Bouras, Inc.
trial court ... has considerable discretion in determining whether ... to issue an injunction
cited
Cited "see"
Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc.
See Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical 27 Co., 733 F.2d 858 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 856 , 105 S. Ct. 183 , 83 L.Ed.2d 117 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
See Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F.2d 858 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 856 , 105 S.Ct. 183 , 83 L.Ed.2d 117 (1984). [Footnote omitted] Since that activity could not be commenced by those who planned to compete with the patentee until expiration of the entire patent term, the patentee’s de facto monopoly would continue for an often substantial period until regulatory approval was obtained.
discussed
Cited "see"
McGaughey v. State
See State v. Chatton, 11 Ohio St.3d 59 , 463 N.E.2d 1237, 1238-41 (1984) (per curiam) (officer who stopped vehicle that had no visible license plates had no authority to further detain driver or ask for his driver's license after he determined that car had valid temporary vehicle permit), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 856 , 105 S.Ct. 182 , 83 LEd.2d 116 (1984), id. at 1240 ("In our view, because the police officer no longer maintained a reasonable suspicion that appellee's vehicle was not properly licensed or registered, to further detain appellee and demand that he produce his driver's license is ak…
cited
Cited "see"
Abbott Laboratories v. Zenith Laboratories, Inc.
See Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F.2d 858 , cert. denied, 469 U.S. 856 , 105 S.Ct. 183 , 83 L.Ed.2d 117 (1984).
cited
Cited "see"
Julio Cesar Rojas, Ernesto Velasco, AKA Columbia, Rolando Ramirez, AKA Cuba v. United States
See United States v. Onu, 730 F.2d 253, 257 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 856 , 105 S.Ct. 182 , 83 L.Ed.2d 116 (1984).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dow Chemical Co. v. United States
See Roche Prods, v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F.2d 858, 861 , cert, denied, 469 U.S. 856 , 105 S.Ct. 183 , 83 L.Ed.2d 117 (1984); Pitcairn v. United States, 212 Ct.Cl. 168 , 547 F.2d 1106 (1976), cert, denied, 434 U.S. 1051 , 98 S.Ct. 903 , 54 L.Ed.2d 804 (1978); Douglas v. United States, 181 USPQ 170 , 1974 WL 20548 (Ct.Cl.
cited
Cited "see"
State v. Childs
See State v. Chatton, 11 Ohio St. 3d 59, 63 , 463 N.E.2d 1237, 1240 (1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 856 , 105 S. Ct. 182 , 83 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Medtronic, Inc.
(2×)
See Roche Products, Inc. v. Bolar Pharmaceutical Co., 733 F. 2d 858 , cert. denied, 469 U. S. 856 (1984). [3] Since that activity could not be commenced by those who planned to compete with the patentee until expiration of the entire patent term, the patentee's de facto monopoly would continue for an often substantial period until regulatory approval was obtained.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Santmire, Unpublished Decision (12-10-2002)
See, also, State v. Chatton (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 59 , 61 , certiorari denied, 469 U.S. 856 , 105 S.Ct. 182 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In the Interest of S.C.S.
See also Moore v. State, 677 S.W.2d 550, 553 (Tex.App. — Amarillo 1983, pet. ref'd), cert. denied 469 U.S. 856 , 105 S.Ct. 182 , 83 L.Ed.2d 116 (1984) (holding that creation of criminal jurisdiction in intermediate appellate courts did not work as an ex post facto law against defendant who filed appeal with high court three days prior to change in law). .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Reiter
See, also, State v. Chatton, 11 Ohio St. 3d 59 , 463 N.E.2d 1237 (1984), cert. denied 469 U.S. 856 , 105 S. Ct. 182 , 83 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Moore
v.
Texas
v.
Texas
No. 84-119.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 1, 1984.
Published
Citer courts: Federal Circuit (1)
Ct. App. Tex., 7th Sup. Jud. Dist. Certiorari denied.