Zippo.” Since the matter to be proved in a secondary meaning case is respondent's belief that the lighter shown him is a Zippo lighter, a respondent's answer is hearsay in the classic sense. Others have criticized the non-hearsay characterization, regardless of whether surveys are offered to prove the truth of what respondents said, because the answers in a survey depend for their probative value on the sincerity of respondents. Id. at 682-83 (footnotes omitted). We belie Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 52, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (allowing admission of memory surveys to support the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's rescission of crash protection requirements, though finding this evidence insufficient); Bristol-Myers Co. v. FTC, 185 F.2d 58, 60 (4th Cir.1950) (<HOLDING>). Three other cases relied on by Schering are
holding substantial evidence supported jury finding of abuse of process holding that hypothetical question should have included allegations of pain which were supported by record holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence holding that ftc action was supported by substantial evidence which included a memory survey holding that the same inference on the same record as that here was supported by substantial evidence