Gechter v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis
116 F.3d 1454 · 1997
Citation profile
29 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably In re Gartside (2000), In re Rouffet (1998)
29 federal appellate ·
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
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation · MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. · Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. · Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must contain sufficient findings and reasoning to permit meaningful appellate scrutiny.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“based merely on an assumption that, as an expert tribunal, it must have decided correctly. 14 Although we have not addressed this problem of opaque or incomplete opinions in the context of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, we have previously considered the difficulty they pose for appellate review of decisions of the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. In that context, we have explicitly held that, although we review decisions and not opinions, to warrant affirmance of a decision on obviousness, the opinion”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A district court therefore may not merely state its findings in conclusory terms, but must provide sufficient detail to elucidate the reasoning by which the court reached its ultimate finding on an issue of fact or conclusion on an issue of law; otherwise, the appellate court is unable to carry out its appellate review function. Indeed, as to the facts it must also find subsidiary facts “specially,” and not just the ultimate fact, here of anticipa tion. If it fails to do so, its decision will ordinarily be vacated.”
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.