Stuart v. United States

Parentheticals

• the word “coop” is widely used and relatively weak and is therefore not likely, when used in a composite mark, to attract the public’s attention

  Source Services Corp. v. Source Telecomputing Corp.

• plaintiff equipment dealer was not injured by alleged boycott by manufacturer, because dealer was able to purchase equipment at comparable cost from other dealers

  Nurse Midwifery Associates v. Hibbett

• “It is also indisputable that the government’s taking of possession put the collateral beyond the reach of any interest that plaintiff may have had.”

  National Micrographics Systems, Inc. v. United States

• federal common law, not Article Nine of the UCC, determines the government’s claim of vesting of title in government contractor’s inventory

  McDonald v. United States

• “The term ‘fact of damage’ refers to causation and simply means ‘that the antitrust violation cause injury to the antitrust plaintiff.’ ” (quoting Alabama v. Blue Bird Body Co., Inc., 573 F.2d 309, 317 (5th Cir.1978).)

  National Bancard Corp.(NaBanco) v. VISA USA

• Merritt, Jones and Weick, JJ.

  Albert J. Doherty v. American Motors Corporation, a Foreign Corporation