Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 Pennsylvania opinions name it 2 courts 1964–2024 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Dulaneygreen1 sentence2024See Williams v. Dulaney, 480 A.2d 1080, 1082 (Pa. Super. 1984) (“It is the duty of the trial judge to determine, prior to sending the case to the jury, whether or not the plaintiff has introduced sufficient evidence to establish the elements necessary to maintain an action.”); see also Gordon v. Trovato, 338 A.3d 653 (Pa. 1975) (“There must be evidence upon which a jury’s conclusion may be based.”). - 18 - J-A18017-23 Therefore, we conclude that the court improperly molded the verdict with regard to the damages awarded on the conversion and unfair competition claims. | 1 | 1 |
Reading Radio, Inc. v. Finkgreen1 sentence2017See Reading Radio, 833 A.2d at 212 . | 1 | 1 |
Long v. Ostroffgreen1 sentence2014See Long, supra at 527-28 ; PA State Univ., supra at 867 . | 1 | 1 |
Liquid Controls Corporation v. Liquid Control Corporationgreen2 sentences1998See Liquid Controls Corp. v. Liquid Control Corp., 802 F.2d 934, 939 (7th Cir.1986). 1998See Liquid Controls, 802 F.2d at 939-40 (suggesting that “Liquid Controls Corp.” could have a valid claim against “Liquid Control Corp.” if there were more evidence of confusion than merely misdirected mail). | 1 | 1 |
Waring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, Inc.green1 sentence1965The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has gone beyond a “passing off” limitation: Waring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, Inc., 327 Pa. 433, 448-56 (1937), and Pottstown Daily News Publishing Company v. Pottstown Broadcasting Company, 411 Pa. 383, 390-94 (1963). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Pennsylvania State University v. University Orthopedics, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2014See Long, supra at 527-28 ; PA State Univ., supra at 867 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Pottstown Daily News Publishing Co. v. Pottstown Broadcasting Co.
green
1 sentence1965The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has gone beyond a “passing off” limitation: Waring v. WDAS Broadcasting Station, Inc., 327 Pa. 433, 448-56 (1937), and Pottstown Daily News Publishing Company v. Pottstown Broadcasting Company, 411 Pa. 383, 390-94 (1963). | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Lanvin Parfums, Inc. v. Le Dans, Ltd.
green
2 sentences1964To the extent that dictum in the case of Lanvin Parfums, Inc. v. LeDans, Ltd., 9 N.Y. 2d 516, 523 , 174 N.E. 2d 920, 922-923 , suggests that an advertising program should be protected under the doctrine of unfair competition, we feel that such a holding is unsound and will not follow it. 1964To the extent that dictum in the case of Lanvin Parfums, Inc. v. LeDans, Ltd., 9 N.Y. 2d 516, 523 , 174 N.E. 2d 920, 922-923 , suggests that an advertising program should be protected under the doctrine of unfair competition, we feel that such a holding is unsound and will not follow it. | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.