green
Positive treatment
3.4 score
Treatment trajectory · 2004 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2004
2015
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see"
Dean v. Pacific Bellwether, LLC
See Int’l Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Estrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359 , 363 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1106 , 124 S.Ct. 1052 , 157 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Leotha Barrow, Also Known as \Petey\"
If we conclude that the proffer agreement waiver does apply in this case, our second step is to review for abuse of discretion the district court’s evidentiary rulings admitting particular parts of Johnson’s proffer statements, see Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 , 174 n. 1, 117 S.Ct. 644 , 136 L,Ed.2d 574 (1997); accord United States v. Schultz, 333 F.3d 393, 415 (2d Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1106 , 124 S.Ct. 1051 , 157 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004), and we will not reverse unless an error affects a “substantial right,” Fed.R.Evid. 103(a).
discussed
Cited "see"
Adventis, Inc. v. Consolidated Property Holdings, Inc.
See Int’l Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359, 362-63 (4th Cir.2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1106 , 124 S.Ct. 1052 , 157 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004). 3 In their briefs and at oral argument, both parties asserted that the district court erred in disregarding their admissions regarding likelihood of confusion and that they were entitled to a finding that the other party had infringed on their marks.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Surdow
See United States v. Schultz, 333 F.3d 393, 415 (2d Cir.2003) (quoting Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 , 174 n. 1, 117 S.Ct. 644 , 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997)), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1106 , 124 S.Ct. 1051 , 157 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
New York State Electric & Gas Corp. v. U.S. Gas & Electric, Inc.
See, e.g., International Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Estrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359 , 370 (4th Cir.2003) (district court did not err in finding that company had shown that its mark had achieved secondary meaning, based in part on evidence of “a long history of continuous, if not exclusive, use of the mark”), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1106 , 124 S.Ct. 1052 , 157 L.Ed.2d 891 (2004); Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277, 295 (7th Cir.1998) (“An additional factor that is important in determining secondary meaning ... is the time, if any, that T & …
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frank
v.
Forest County, Wisconsin
v.
Forest County, Wisconsin
No. 03-577.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 12, 2004.
540 U.S. 1106
Published
C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.