green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
7.9 score
“the aspect of the beef promotion act which imposes assessments for research purposes qualifies as neither 'expressive' nor 'intimate' association, and therefore does not implicate frame's first amendment rights”
Treatment trajectory · 1990 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1990
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Commission
the aspect of the beef promotion act which imposes assessments for research purposes qualifies as neither 'expressive' nor 'intimate' association, and therefore does not implicate frame's first amendment rights
discussed
Cited "see"
Pelts & Skins, L.L.C. v. Jenkins
See United States v. Frame, 885 F.2d 1119 (3rd Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1990), where the United States sought to recover assessments under the Beef Promotion and Research Act from a cattle buyer and produc *489 er.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Raytech Corp.
See New Era Publications International, ApS v. Henry Holt and Co., Inc., 873 F.2d 576, 597 (2nd Cir.1989), reh'g denied, 884 F.2d 659 , cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. v. Leisure Time Productions, B.V.
Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. v. Lehman, 625 F.2d 1037, 1040 (2d Cir.1980); see New Era Publications Int’l v. Henry Holt & Co., 873 F.2d 576, 584-85 (2d Cir.1989) (equitable doctrine of laches barred plaintiff from enjoining publication of author’s biography when there was severe prejudice and unconscionable delay in seeking injunctive relief), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tri-Star Pictures, Inc. v. Leisure Time Productions, B v. Leisure Time Productions, B v. Third-Party v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. And Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Third-Party-Defendants-Appellees, Horizon Pictures, G.B. Academy Pictures, A.G. David N. Bottoms and Hon. Raya S. Dreben, as Executors of the Estate of Samuel Speigel, Third-Party
Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. v. Lehman, 625 F.2d 1037, 1040 (2d Cir.1980); see New Era Publications Int'l v. Henry Holt & Co., 873 F.2d 576, 584-85 (2d Cir.1989) (equitable doctrine of laches barred plaintiff from enjoining publication of author's biography when there was severe prejudice and unconscionable delay in seeking injunctive relief), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Cal-Almond, Inc., a California Corporation v. United States Department of Agriculture Cal-Almond, Inc., a California Corporation, Saulsbury Orchard and Almond Processing, Inc., Carlson Farms, a Sole Proprietorship v. United States Department of Agriculture Cal-Almond, Inc., a California Corporation, Gourmet Packing Co., a California Corporation, Gold Hills Nut Co., Inc., a California Corporation v. United States Department of Agriculture Cal-Almond, Inc., a California Corporation, Gold Hills Nut Co., Inc., a California Corporation v. United States
See United States v. Frame, 885 F.2d 1119 (3d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1990).
cited
Cited "see"
Cal-Almond, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture
See United States v. Frame, 885 F.2d 1119 (3d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Association of American Medical Colleges v. Cuomo
See New Era Publications Int'l v. Henry Holt and Co., 873 F.2d 576, 583 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990); Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 97 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 890 , 108 S.Ct. 213 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Association Of American Medical Colleges v. Mario Cuomo
See New Era Publications Int'l v. Henry Holt and Co., 873 F.2d 576, 583 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990); Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90, 97 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 890 , 108 S.Ct. 213 , 98 L.Ed.2d 177 (1987).
discussed
Cited "see"
Saulsbury Orchards And Almond Processing, Inc. v. Clayton K. Yeutter
See United States v. Frame, 885 F.2d 1119, 1129-37 (3d Cir.1989) (holding that first amendment rights were not violated when the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 required cattle producers and importers to finance a national beef promotional campaign by paying a one dollar assessment for each head of cattle), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Saulsbury Orchards & Almond Processing, Inc. v. Yeutter
See United States v. Frame, 885 F.2d 1119, 1129-37 (3d Cir.1989) (holding that first amendment rights were not violated when the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 required cattle producers and importers to finance a national beef promotional campaign by paying a one dollar assessment for each head of cattle), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc. v. Giannini
See United States v. Frame, 885 F.2d 1119, 1128-29 (3d Cir.1989) (advisory and ministerial functions not an unlawful delegation), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1990); cf. Chiglades Farm, Ltd. v. Butz, 485 F.2d 1125, 1134 (5th Cir.1973) (upholding celery marketing order on the basis that the Secretary retains ultimate authority), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 968 , 94 S.Ct. 3170 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1138 (1974). . .
discussed
Cited "see"
Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc. v. Leroy Giannini
See United States v. Frame, 885 F.2d 1119, 1128-29 (3d Cir.1989) (advisory and ministerial functions not an unlawful delegation), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1990); cf. Chiglades Farm, Ltd. v. Butz, 485 F.2d 1125, 1134 (5th Cir.1973) (upholding celery marketing order on the basis that the Secretary retains ultimate authority), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 968 , 94 S.Ct. 3170 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1138 (1974) 10 The court agrees with the district court that if immunity would exist with respect to federal antitrust liability, it would apply to California's Cartwright Act as …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rosebud Entertainment, LLC v. Professional Laminating LLC
See also New Era Publ'ns Int’l, ApS v. Henry Holt & Co., 695 F.Supp. 1493 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) (the fair use doctrine protects against republication that offers the copyrighted work “in a secondary packaging,” such that "potential customers, having read the secondary work, will no longer be inclined to purchase again something they have already read.”), aff'd, 873 F.2d 576 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Trustees of Columbia University v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp.
See, e.g., New Era Publications Int’l v. Henry Holt & Co., Inc., 873 F.2d 576, 584-85 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990) *753 (finding that laches barred injunctive relief where the plaintiff failed to take any steps to enjoin infringing publication for two years and finding that the delay was “unconscionable”); Byron, 1995 WL 465130 , at *6-*7 (finding unreasonable delay where the plaintiff sent two cease-and-desist letters and then did not bring suit for seven years); McDonald’s Corp. v. Druck & Gerner, D.D.S., P.C., 814 F.Supp. 1127…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Monster Communications, Inc. v. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.
NimmeR & David NimmbR, NimmeR on Copyright (“Nimmer”) § 13.05[A][l][a], at 13-161 to 162 (1995); see also New Era Publications International, ApS v. Henry Holt & Co., Inc., 873 F.2d 576, 583 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990); Rosemont Enterprises, Inc. v. Random House, Inc., 366 F.2d 303, 307 (2d Cir.1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 1009 , 87 S.Ct. 714 , 17 L.Ed.2d 546 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tap Publications, Inc. v. Chinese Yellow Pages (New York) Inc.
See, e.g., New Era Publications Int’l v. Henry Holt and Co., Inc., 873 F.2d 576, 584-85 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990) (laches barred injunctive relief where plaintiff failed to take any steps to enjoin infringing publication for two years; delay was “unconscionable”); Byron, 1995 WL 465130 , at *6-7 (finding unreasonable delay where plaintiff sent two cease-and-desist letters and then did not bring suit for seven years); McDonald’s Corp. v. Druck & Gerner, D.D.S., PC., 814 F.Supp. 1127, 1137 (N.D.N.Y.1993) (plaintiff inexcusably d…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc. v. Michael Espy
See also United States v. Frame, 885 F.2d 1119, 1134 (3d Cir.1989) (government has substantial interest in salvaging the beef industry), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Tienshan, Inc. v. C.C.A. International (N.J.), Inc.
See, e.g., New Era Publications International v. Henry Holt and Co., Inc., 873 F.2d 576, 584 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc. v. Espy
See also United States v. Frame, 885 F.2d 1119, 1134 (3d Cir.1989) (government has substantial interest in salvaging the beef industry), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1070 (1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc.
See, e.g., New Era Publications Int'l, ApS v. Henry Holt and Co. (“New Era”), 873 F.2d 576, 592 (2d Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1094 , 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990) (Oakes, C.J, concurring) (“words that are facts calling for comment are distinguishable from words that simply enliven text.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Arica Institute, Inc. v. Palmer
See also New Era Publications Int’l, ApS v. Henry Holt & Co., 695 F.Supp. 1493, 1507 (S.D.N.Y.1988) (legitimate works of criticism do not lose fair use protection simply because author has profit-making objective), aff’d, 873 F.2d 576 (2d Cir.), reh'g denied, 884 F.2d 659 (2d Cir.1989), ce rt. denied, — U.S. —, 110 S.Ct. 1168 , 107 L.Ed.2d 1071 (1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Frame
v.
United States
v.
United States
No. 89-828.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 20, 1990.
Consideration, Took.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: E.D. California (1) · S.D. New York (1)
C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.