LEISURE

v.

MISSOURI

Citator

Cited By

• Mozo v. State, 632 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
  …of whether the Fourth Amendment protects conversations on a cordless phone. In fact, the United States Supreme Court has declined to review a decision that ruled on this issue. See Tyler v. Berodt, 877 F. 2d 705, 706-07 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1022, 110 S.Ct. 723, 107 L.Ed.2d 743 (1990). According to one source, nearly half of the 95 million United States households use cordless telephones. See United States v. Smith, 978 F. 2d 171, 177 (5th Cir.1992) (citing Anthony Ramirez, More Range, Less…
• State Indus., Inc. v. Mor-Flo Indus., Inc., 948 F.2d 1573 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
  …Indus., 8 USPQ2d 1971 (E.D.Tenn.1988). Mor-Flo again appealed, and we affirmed the judgment insofar as it awarded lost profits and a 3% royalty. State Indus. v. Mor-Flo Indus., 883 F. 2d 1573, 1582, 12 USPQ2d 1026, 1032 (Fed.Cir.1989), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1022, 110 S.Ct. 725, 107 L.Ed.2d 744 (1990). However, as to the determination that infringement had not been willful, we noted that the district court’s findings seemed inconsistent. On the one hand, the court had stated that Mor-Flo “should have known”…