Franklin Pierce Law Center v. Georgetown University
Franklin Pierce Law Ctr. v. Georgetown Univ., 498 U.S. 816 (1990)
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 4 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(defining puffing as advertising that is “not deceptive for no one would rely on its exaggerated claims”)
-
(applying a Bradley analysis and finding that new substantive provisions of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act should be applied retroactively to a pending case)
-
(“partially incorrect or untrue statements resulting from a failure to disclose a material fact" are actionable under § 43(a))
-
(although the corporations involved in the suit would be public figures under the traditional Gertz analysis, the Third Circuit declined to make such a finding)
Cited by 67 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- BIEC International, Inc. v. Global Steel Services, Ltd.
- Centennial School District v. Independence Blue Cross
- American Telephone And Telegraph Company v. Winback And Conserve Program, Inc.
- Castrol Inc. v. Pennzoil Company and Pennzoil Products Company
- Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharmaceuticals Company v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc
- Wilson v. Slatalla
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.