green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
1.7 score
“t is in a district, court's sound discretion to declare a mistrial”
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994
2010
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc.
(2×)
For trademark, see, e. g., Motown Productions, Inc. v. Cacomm, Inc., 849 F. 2d 781, 786 (CA2 1988) (exceptional circumstances include cases in which losing party prosecuted or defended action in bad faith); but see Scotch Whisky Assn. v. Majestic Distilling Co., 958 F. 2d 594, 599 (CA4) (finding in the legislative history that prevailing defendants are to be treated more favorably than prevailing plaintiffs), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 862 (1992). [13] Respondent points to four important interests allegedly advanced by the dual standard: (1) it promotes the vigorous enforcement of the Copyright A…
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
United States v. Gigante
t is in a district, court's sound discretion to declare a mistrial
discussed
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. Roth
See In re Ford, 987 F.2d 334, 340-41 , cert. den. 506 U.S. 862 (6th Cir. 1992) (interpreting and applying the same provision of Rule 31 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure on which Mass.R.Crim.P. 27 was based); Whiteaker v. State, 808 P.2d 270, 273-74 (Alaska App. 1991) (a partial verdict within the meaning of Rule 31(b) of the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure encompasses a verdict of not guilty of one or more of the greater charges in an indictment as to which the jury is deadlocked on a lesser charge).
discussed
Cited "see"
National Federation of Blind, Inc. v. Loompanics Enterprises, Inc.
See Scotch Whisky Ass’n v. Majestic Distilling Co., 958 F.2d 594, 598-99 (4th Cir.) (holding summary judgment was appropriate where the plaintiff presented virtually no evidence tending to show consumer confusion related to the defendant’s whisky label), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 862 , 113 S.Ct. 181 , 121 L.Ed.2d 126 (1992).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Conopco, Inc., D/B/A Van Den Bergh Foods Company, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Campbell Soup Company, Defendants-Appellee-Cross-Appellant
See also Scotch Whisky Ass’n v. Majestic Distilling Co., 958 F.2d 594, 599 (4th Cir.) (collecting cases), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 862 , 113 S.Ct. 181 , 121 L.Ed.2d 126 (1992).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Ford
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 92-29.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 5, 1992.
506 U.S. 862
Published
Citer courts: E.D. New York (1)
C. A. 6th Cir. Certiorari denied.