Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc.
469 U.S. 189 (1985) Cited 942 times 7 Legal AnalysesHolding that an incontestable mark cannot be challenged as merely descriptive
Lyerla v. AMCO Insurance
462 F. Supp. 2d 931 (S.D. Ill. 2006) Cited 37 timesCIVIL NO. 06-679-GPM. October 12, 2006. Jimmy D. Ellis, Burkart Law Offices, Maryville, IL, for Plaintiff and Counter Defendant. Robert W. Cockerham, Brown James, St. Louis, MO, for Defendant. ORDER MURPHY, Chief Judge. This matter is before the Court sua sponte on review of the jurisdictional allegations of the amended notice of removal filed by Defendant AMCO Insurance Company ("AMCO") on September 29, 2006 (Doc. 9). AMCO's amended notice of removal alleges "[u]pon information and belief" that
Dorpan v. Hotel Meliá, Inc.
728 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2013) Cited 27 times 4 Legal AnalysesFinding similarity of goods where "there is substantial overlap in the core services offered by each hotel"
Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Group
637 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 27 times 3 Legal AnalysesConsidering "corporate studies tracking awareness of the CITIBANK mark"
Raymon v. Alvord Independent School Dist
639 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1981) Cited 63 timesHolding that student's claim of retaliatory lowering of algebra grade, resulting in "insignificant decrease in her overall grade point average" that did not affect her class rank, was "patently insubstantial"
Advance Stores Co. v. Refinishing Specialties
188 F.3d 408 (6th Cir. 1999) Cited 5 timesNo. 98-5153. Argued: February 4, 1999. Decided: August 16, 1999. Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY AT LOUISVILLE, No. 95-00093 — JOHN G. HEYBURN II, DISTRICT JUDGE. Robert DeVos (argued and briefed), Fred W. Hathaway (briefed), Bruce T. Wieder (briefed), BURNS, DOANE, SWECKER MATHIS, Alexandria, VA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees. Joel T. Beres (briefed), Jack Allen Wheat (argued and briefed), WHEAT, CAMORIANO, SMITH BERES
Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction
28 U.S.C. § 1367 Cited 62,785 times 78 Legal AnalysesHolding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,670 times 188 Legal AnalysesGranting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 28,265 times 198 Legal AnalysesFinding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Section 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
28 U.S.C. § 1746 Cited 10,165 times 17 Legal AnalysesMaking affidavits and declarations effectively synonymous
Rule 3 - Commencing an Action
Fed. R. Civ. P. 3 Cited 3,006 times 5 Legal AnalysesStating that once the inmate has filed his motion with the clerk, "[t]he clerk must file the motion and enter it on the criminal docket of the case in which the challenged judgment was entered"
Section 1065 - Incontestability of right to use mark under certain conditions
15 U.S.C. § 1065 Cited 1,109 times 16 Legal AnalysesListing the requirements for incontestability