E.D. Michigan· 4/20/1995
Johnson v. Jones
Citations
- 885 F. Supp. 1008
- 36 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1513
- 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6345
- 1995 WL 273647
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- noting that ―[t]ypically, federal courts apply the relevant state law in determining questions of contract‖
- noting that “[t]ypically, federal courts apply the relevant state law in determining questions of contract”
- finding implied license determination poorly suited for summary disposition where parties had no written agreement and intent was a crucial element of the claim
- \[A]ll of the circumstances surrounding the negotiations made between the parties must be considered to determine if and to what extent an implied license was granted\
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Rosen
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
9 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Carson v. Dynegy, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 2003-08-27· cited 79×
- Keane Dealer Services, Inc. v. HartsS.D. New York· 1997-07-01· cited 27×
- Quinn v. City of DetroitE.D. Michigan· 1998-09-29· cited 19×
- Netbula, LLC v. BindView Development Corp.N.D. California· 2007-09-10· cited 14×
- Lulirama Ltd. v. Axcess Broadcast Services, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1997-12-03· cited 12×
- In re PorterE.D. Louisiana· 2013-08-16· cited 2×
- Lulirama Ltd., Inc. v. Axcess Broadcast Services, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1997-11-10
- Game Systems, Inc. A/K/A Texas Game Systems v. Forbes Hutton Leasing, Inc. and Gametronics Gaming Equipment Limited And Robert HouchinTex. App. Ct., 2nd Dist. (Fort Worth)· 2011-05-26
- Karlson v. Red Door Homes, LLCN.D. Alabama· 2014-04-30
Cites
23 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court· 1986-03-26· cited 58,760×
- Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 94,768 Phil A. Street and Clyde H. Street v. J.C. Bradford & CompanySixth Circuit· 1990-05-25· cited 2,773×
- Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.Supreme Court· 1982-06-01· cited 1,327×
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.Supreme Court· 1984-01-17· cited 978×
- William Butler Smith v. Leman HudsonSixth Circuit· 1979-06-21· cited 746×
- 60 Ivy Street Corporation (86-5500), and Coldwell Banker Commercial Group, Inc., (86-5517) v. R.C. Alexander and Doris AlexanderSixth Circuit· 1987-08-17· cited 674×
- William R. Warner & Co. v. Eli Lilly & Co.Supreme Court· 1924-06-09· cited 246×
- S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc.Ninth Circuit· 1989-09-13· cited 214×
- Irene Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.Second Circuit· 1968-02-16· cited 104×
- Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.Supreme Court· 1968-10-14· cited 81×
- MacLean Associates, Inc. v. Wm. M. Mercer-Meidinger-Hansen, Inc. v. Barry MacLean and Greg Darnley Barry MacLeanThird Circuit· 1991-12-31· cited 69×
- Effects Associates, Inc. v. CohenNinth Circuit· 1990-07-20· cited 63×
- Fantastic Fakes, Inc. v. Pickwick International, Inc.Fifth Circuit· 1981-11-16· cited 53×
- Klever v. KleverMichigan Supreme Court· 1952-04-07· cited 45×
- Aitken, Hazen, Hoffman, Miller, P. C. v. Empire Construction Co.D. Nebraska· 1982-05-13· cited 41×
- Vivian Hallmark Middleton, Individually and as Next Friend of Christopher Neil Hallmark v. Reynolds Metals CompanySixth Circuit· 1992-05-29· cited 36×
- South-Western Publishing Company, a Corporation v. Harry Simons, Harry Simons v. South-Western Publishing Co., a CorporationNinth Circuit· 1981-10-16· cited 22×
- Pamfiloff v. Giant Records, Inc.N.D. California· 1992-03-31· cited 21×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.