16 Cited authorities

Bourjaily v. United States
483 U.S. 171 (1987) Cited 2,731 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that trial judge may consider any evidence whatsoever, including the proffered hearsay statements, in determining whether statements are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule
Cooper v. Brown
510 F.3d 870 (9th Cir. 2007) Cited 342 times
Holding that the Ninth Circuit only requires a "prima facie showing" of compliance with § 2255 and not "actual . . . satisf[action]" of the statutory requirements
U.S. v. Vallejo
237 F.3d 1008 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 226 times
Holding inadmissible agent's testimony about drug trafficking procedures which implied, without evidence, that any defendant had such knowledge
Jinro America Inc. v. Secure Investments, Inc.
266 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 161 times
Holding that the district court erred in "[a]llowing an expert witness in a civil action" brought against a Korean business "to generalize that most Korean businesses are corrupt, are not to be trusted and will engage in complicated business transactions to evade Korean currency laws"
Tennison v. Circus Circus Enterprises, Inc.
244 F.3d 684 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 143 times
Holding that litigants who did not attempt to introduce testimony at trial cannot challenge exclusion of that evidence on appeal
Interstellar Starship Services, Ltd. v. Epix, Inc.
304 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 2002) Cited 133 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the transfer of a domain name, as opposed to an injunction on its use, was inappropriate where the plaintiff established trademark infringement but failed to establish a violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, citing 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(C)
United States v. Hoac
990 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir. 1993) Cited 84 times
Holding that unless he controlled or organized others, a defendant cannot be found an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor
In re Apollo Group Inc. Securities Litigation
527 F. Supp. 2d 957 (D. Ariz. 2007) Cited 7 times
Finding expert was qualified to opine on a topic despite lack of knowledge as to a particular specialty within his field because it was a "specific objection[]"
Rule 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses
Fed. R. Evid. 702 Cited 26,664 times 255 Legal Analyses
Adopting the Daubert standard
Rule 403 - Excluding Relevant Evidence for Prejudice, Confusion, Waste of Time, or Other Reasons
Fed. R. Evid. 403 Cited 22,522 times 81 Legal Analyses
Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks
Section 1125 - False designations of origin, false descriptions, and dilution forbidden
15 U.S.C. § 1125 Cited 15,276 times 320 Legal Analyses
Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"
Rule 401 - Test for Relevant Evidence
Fed. R. Evid. 401 Cited 13,395 times 34 Legal Analyses
Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"
Section 15 - Suits by persons injured
15 U.S.C. § 15 Cited 5,671 times 35 Legal Analyses
Granting private right of action to anyone who has been injured "by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ..."
Section 101 - Inventions patentable
35 U.S.C. § 101 Cited 3,400 times 2189 Legal Analyses
Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."
Section 26 - Injunctive relief for private parties; exception; costs
15 U.S.C. § 26 Cited 1,450 times 1 Legal Analyses
Authorizing injunctive relief against "threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws"
Section 23 - Suits by United States; subpoenas for witnesses
15 U.S.C. § 23 Cited 23 times 1 Legal Analyses
In any suit, action, or proceeding brought by or on behalf of the United States subpoenas for witnesses who are required to attend a court of the United States in any judicial district in any case, civil or criminal, arising under the antitrust laws may run into any other district: Provided, That in civil cases no writ of subpoena shall issue for witnesses living out of the district in which the court is held at a greater distance than one hundred miles from the place of holding the same without

Nextdoor.com, Inc. v. Abhyanker

16 Cited authorities

Holding that trial judge may consider any evidence whatsoever, including the proffered hearsay statements, in determining whether statements are admissible under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay rule

Holding that the Ninth Circuit only requires a "prima facie showing" of compliance with § 2255 and not "actual . . . satisf[action]" of the statutory requirements

Holding inadmissible agent's testimony about drug trafficking procedures which implied, without evidence, that any defendant had such knowledge

Holding that the district court erred in "[a]llowing an expert witness in a civil action" brought against a Korean business "to generalize that most Korean businesses are corrupt, are not to be trusted and will engage in complicated business transactions to evade Korean currency laws"

Holding that litigants who did not attempt to introduce testimony at trial cannot challenge exclusion of that evidence on appeal

Holding that the transfer of a domain name, as opposed to an injunction on its use, was inappropriate where the plaintiff established trademark infringement but failed to establish a violation of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, citing 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)(C)

Holding that unless he controlled or organized others, a defendant cannot be found an organizer, leader, manager or supervisor

Finding expert was qualified to opine on a topic despite lack of knowledge as to a particular specialty within his field because it was a "specific objection[]"

Adopting the Daubert standard

Adopting a similar standard, but requiring the probative value to be "substantially outweighed" by these risks

Holding "the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional"

Providing that evidence is relevant if " it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action"

Granting private right of action to anyone who has been injured "by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws ..."

Defining patentable subject matter as "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof."

Authorizing injunctive relief against "threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws"