Lee v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 federal appellate · 21 district · 66 state decisions

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 214 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The court does not interfere with the title of a patentee when the alleged mistake relates to a matter of fact concerning which those officers may have drawn wrong conclusions from the testimony. A judicial inquiry as to the correctness of such conclusions would encroach upon a jurisdiction which congress has devolved exclusively upon the department. It is only when fraud and imposition have prevented the unsuccessful party in a contest from fully presenting his case, or the officers from fully considering it, that a court wiil look into the evidence. It is not enough, however, that fraud and imposition have been practiced upon the department, or that false testimony or fraudulent documents have been presented. It must appear that they affected its determination, which otherwise would have been in favor of the plaintiff. He. must in all cases show that, but for the error or fraud or imposition of which' he complains, he would be entitled to the patent; it is not enough to show that it should not have been issued to the patentee. It is for the party whose rights are alleged to have been disregarded that relief is sought, not for the. government, which can file its own bill when It desires the cancellation of a patent unadvisedly or wrongfully issued.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. American Mortg. Co. of Scotland v. Hopper · Peabody Gold Min. Co. v. Gold Hill Min. Co.

2. ““If in any case it appears from the evidence that the claim of the complaining or moving party is against public policy or the law, so that in no event could he recover a final judgment or decision, whatever be the nature or extent of the testimony upon the point at issue, the tribunal should not hesitate to dismiss the suit or the proceeding.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Edwards v. Bodkin

3. ““While there are no formal pleadings in such cases, it is undoubtedly true, as a general rule, that in contested matters before the Land Department, as in those before the courts, the decision should be confined to the questions raised by the allegations of the respective parties; but this rule has its exceptions.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Edwards v. Bodkin