green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
6.4 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1968 ·
…violent bloodshed, lust or immorality or which, for a child below the age of eighteen, are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent or disgusting and so presented as reasonably to tend to incite such a child to violence or depraved or immoral acts
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1961 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1961
1993
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 17 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. City of Dallas
(2×)
violent bloodshed, lust or immorality or which, for a child below the age of eighteen, are obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, indecent or disgusting and so presented as reasonably to tend to incite such a child to violence or depraved or immoral acts
discussed
Cited "see"
Westchester Media Co. v. PRL USA Holdings, Inc.
See Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 279 F.2d 607 (2nd Cir.1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960); In Re Loew’s Theatres, Inc., 769 F.2d 764 (Fed.Cir.1985); In Re Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner and Smith, Inc. ., 828 F.2d 1567, 1568 (Fed.Cir.1987).
cited
Cited "see"
Nalpac, Ltd., a Michigan Corporation v. Corning Glass Works, a New York Corporation
See Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 279 F.2d 607 , 611 n. 6 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mushroom Makers, Inc. v. R. G. Barry Corp.
(2×)
See cases cited in note 15 supra. 29 . 279 F.2d 607 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960). 30 .
discussed
Cited "see"
B. D. Communications, Inc. v. Dial Media, Inc.
See Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 279 F.2d 607, 614 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960); Maternally Yours, Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop, Inc., 234 F.2d 538, 542 (2d Cir. 1956); Miles Shoes, Inc. v. R.
discussed
Cited "see"
Louis Rich, Inc. v. Horace W. Longacre, Inc.
See and compare Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 279 F.2d 607, 614 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960), in which the Court articulated, but did not decide, the question whether § 1115(b)(5) establishes a defense to an incontestable mark or “merely allows an innocent junior user, whose use antedated the first user’s registration, to avoid the conclusive effect of an otherwise incontestable registration, thus leaving the first user to his remedy under § 1114(1), subject to proving the validity of his mark.” In the instant case, plaintiff does …
discussed
Cited "see"
Wiener King, Inc. v. Wiener King Corp.
See Avon Shoe Co., Inc. v. David Crystal, Inc., 171 F.Supp. 293 , aff’d., 279 F.2d 607 (2d Cir. 1960), cert. den., 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960); Coastal Chemical Co., Inc. v. Dust —A—Way, Inc., 263 F.Supp. 351 (W.D.Tenn.1967).
cited
Cited "see"
Dahl v. City of Palo Alto
See City of San Marino v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of L.A., 180 Cal.App.2d 657, 676-677 , 4 Cal.Rptr. 547, 559-560 , cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 272 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see"
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v. VEB Carl Zeiss Jena
See Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 279 F.2d 607 , cert. denied 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960) ; Polaroid Corp. v. Polarad Electronics Corp., 287 F.2d 492 , cert. denied 368 U.S. 820 , 82 S.Ct. 36 , 7 L.Ed.2d 25 (1961) ; Triumph Hosiery Mills, Inc. v. Triumph Int’l Corp., 308 F.2d 196 (1962) ; Chandon Champagne Corp. v. San Marino Wine Corp., 335 F.2d 531 (1964) ; Miss Universe v. Patricelli, 408 F.2d 506 (1969). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Atlantic Monthly Company v. Frederick Ungar Publishing Co.
See Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 2 Cir., 279 F.2d 607, 613 , certiorari denied 1960, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 ; Aunt Jemima Mills Co. v. Rigney & Co., 2 Cir., 1917, 247 F. 407 , certiorari denied 1918, 245 U.S. 672 , 38 S.Ct. 222 , 62 L.Ed. 540 ; Restatement, Torts § 730, comment a (1938).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sinclair v. State
See also Police Comm'r of Baltimore City v. Siegel Enterprises, 223 Md. 110 , 162 A.2d 727 , cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 273 , 5 L.Ed.2d 225 (1960) (affirming a declaratory judgment holding the Crime Comic Books Act unconstitutional, at the instance of a newsstand and bookstore owner).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Fashion Television Associates, L.P. v. Spiegel, Inc.
See also Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 279 F.2d 607, 614 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960). .Although plaintiff also makes a claim under Section 32 of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1114 (1), for service mark infringement, that claim must be dismissed since standing is limited to registrants under this section.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Daniel Joseph Powell, United States of America v. James Harrison Oviatt
See also Sachs v. United States, 281 F.2d 189, 191 (9th Cir.) (evidence of a phonograph record's "list suggested price" and "dealer's customary price" established value of 180 records to be in excess of $100), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 (1960). 7 Defendants argue that this evidence fails to establish a loss to the government exceeding $100, in view of the fact that the government at times either sold yew bark for 5cents/lb. or gave it away.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Natural Footwear Limited, a Corporation of the Province of Ontario Canada v. Hart, Schaffner & Marx, a New York Corporation, and Roots, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation. Roots, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Counterclaimant v. Don Green and Michael Budman, Individuals, and Natural Footwear Limited, a Corporation of the Province of Ontario, Canada, Counterdefendants. Appeal of Natural Footwear Limited, Don Green, and Michael Budman, and Counterclaim Natural Footwear Limited, a Corporation of the Province of Ontario Canada v. Hart, Schaffner & Marx, a New York Corporation, and Roots, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation. Roots, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, Counterclaimant v. Don Green and Michael Budman, Individuals, and Natural Footwear Limited, a Corporation of the Province of Ontario, Canada, Counterdefendants. Appeal of Hart, Schaffner & Marx and Defendant-Counterclaimant Roots, Inc
Barry Corp., 580 F.2d 44, 48 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1116 , 99 S.Ct. 1022 , 59 L.Ed.2d 75 (1979); see also Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 279 F.2d 607 , 613 n. 7 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960). 27 The Avon Shoe court also stated in this regard that "incontestability under [section 1065] would carry a conclusive presumption of the plaintiff's exclusive right to use its mark only on shoes," 28 when the registration indicated only that the trademark would identify shoes.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Natural Footwear Ltd. v. Hart, Schaffner & Marx
Barry Corp., 580 F.2d 44, 48 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1116 , 99 S.Ct. 1022 , 59 L.Ed.2d 75 (1979); see also Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 279 F.2d 607 , 613 n. 7 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960). 27 The Avon Shoe court also stated in this regard that “incontestability under [section 1065] would carry a conclusive presumption of the plaintiffs exclusive right to use its mark only on shoes,” 28 when the registration indicated only that the trademark would identify shoes.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Del Laboratories, Inc. v. Alleghany Pharmacal Corp.
Barry Corp., 441 F.Supp. 1220, 1224 , aff’d, 580 F.2d 44 (2d Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1116 , 99 S.Ct. 1022 , 59 L.Ed.2d 75 (1979) (sales increased from $16,200 to $8,000,000 within two years); see also Avon Shoe Co. v. David Crystal, Inc., 279 F.2d 607, 610 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 271 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 (1960).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Charles Jason Quinn
See also Sachs v. United States, 281 F.2d 189, 191 (9 Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 909 , 81 S.Ct. 272 , 5 L.Ed.2d 224 . 2 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Sachs
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 439.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 5, 1960.
Bernard B. Laven for petitioner. Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Wil-key, Beatrice Rosenberg and Felicia Dubrovsky for the United States.
Published
Citer courts: Supreme Court (2)
C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.