green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
12.9 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 2009 ·
…bills quia timet were generally appropriate if there was a danger that a defense at law might be prejudiced or lost if not tried immediately.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1997 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1997
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
AstenJohnson Inc v. Columbia Cslty Co
(2×)
bills quia timet were generally appropriate if there was a danger that a defense at law might be prejudiced or lost if not tried immediately.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Astenjohnson, Inc. v. Columbia Casualty Co.
bills quia timet were generally appropriate if there was a danger that a defense at law might be prejudiced or lost if not tried immediately.
discussed
Cited "see"
Agfa Corp. v. Creo Products, Inc.
(2×)
See Lockwood, 50 F.3d at 974 n.9 ("The contemporary analog of the writ is thus an action for a declaration of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. . . . "), which was vacated when Mr. Lockwood withdrew his jury demand, 515 U.S. 1182 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Agfa Corporation v. Creo Products Inc.
See Lockwood, 50 F.3d at 974 n. 9 ("The contemporary analog of the writ is thus an action for a declaration of unenforceability due to inequitable conduct. . . ."), which was vacated when Mr. Lockwood withdrew his jury demand, 515 U.S. 1182 , 116 S.Ct. 29 , 132 L.Ed.2d 911 (1995).
cited
Cited "see"
Oregon Health & Science University v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
See In re Lockwood, 50 F.3d 966 , 974 n. 8 (Fed.Cir.1995), vacated, 515 U.S. 1182 , 116 S.Ct. 29 , 132 L.Ed.2d 911 (1995).
discussed
Cited "see"
Boston Scientific Corp. v. Schneider (Europe) AG
I acknowledge that "[w]hen questions of validity and infringement are raised in the same proceeding, the trial court should decide both issues and enter a judgment on both.” Simmons Fastener Corp. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 739 F.2d 1573, 1576 (Fed.Cir.1984), ce rt. denied, 471 U.S. 1065 , 105 S.Ct. 2138 , 85 L.Ed.2d 496 (1985); accord In re Lockwood, 50 F.3d 966 , 968 n. 2 (Fed.Cir.), vacated on other grounds, 515 U.S. 1182 , 116 S.Ct. 29 , 132 L.Ed.2d 911 (1995); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463 (Fed.Cir.1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Disbarment of Crewell
No. D-1559.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Sep 1, 1995.
515 U.S. 1182
Published
Citer courts: Third Circuit (2)
Disbarment entered. [For earlier order herein, see ante, p. 1140.]