Loading…

Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates — freecase.ai

Search Pricing About Why now Resources Guides

Opinion

Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates

498 U.S. 992 · Supreme Court of the United States · Nov 26, 1990

Full text

Wilson Sporting Goods Co. v. David Geoffrey & Associates, dba Slazenger

Opinions in this case

Majority
Majority

C. A. Fed. Cir. Motion of respondents to seal Rule 29.1 listing granted. Certio-rari denied.

Notice

Freecase is a legal research tool. It does not determine whether a case is good law and does not provide legal advice.

Metadata

Status: Published
Author
Judges: Not listed
Cluster ID: 9103659

Citations

498 U.S. 992
111 S. Ct. 537

Cited by

Paul Alfred Brown v. State of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida · Jan 29, 2018
Correll v. Secretary, Department of Corrections
M.D. Florida · Mar 19, 2013
Indiana Mills & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Dorel Industries Inc.
S.D. Indiana · Aug 25, 2006
Nikon Corp. v. ASM Lithography B.V.
N.D. California · Mar 11, 2004
Butler v. State
Supreme Court of Florida · Apr 3, 2003

© 2026 freecase.aicontact@freecase.aiBuilt by lawyers. Powered by AI.

Freecase.ai provides legal information for educational and research purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Always consult a licensed attorney for legal guidance. Terms of Service

Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc.

D. Kansas · Mar 4, 2003

Boler Co. v. NEWAY ANCHORLOCK, INC.

N.D. Ohio · Apr 11, 2000

Supreme Court of Florida · Mar 9, 2000

Altech Controls Corp. v. E.I.L. Instruments, Inc.

S.D. Texas · Sep 21, 1999

Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc.

D. Kansas · Jun 29, 1999

Robert Glen Coe, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Ricky Bell, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee

Sixth Circuit · Feb 23, 1999

Merck & Co., Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 24, 1998

Parentheticals

while constitutionally permissible to instruct jury on subject of parole, such an instruction is not constitutionally required
Hoke v. Thompson