Shikler v. Weinstein’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1980
1 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Relies on Kerotest Mfg Co v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co · Crosley Corp. v. Hazeltine Corp. · Hazeltine Corp. v. Crosley Corp. · Remington Products Corp. v. American Aerovap, Inc. · Hammett v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The manufacturer who is charged with infringing a patent cannot stretch the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act to give him a paramount right to choose the forum for trying out questions of infringement and validity. He is given an equal start in the race to the courthouse, not a headstart.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.