Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 118 F.2d 361 - In re Crowe

In re Crowe’s Empirical Analysis

118 F.2d 361 · 1941

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
June 1942
most recently cited

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

  1. ““The Patent Office tribunals did not hold that the disclosure in the patent to Mordey was an anticipation of the method set forth in the appealed claims, as it obviously is not, but, in rejecting the appealed claims, combined that and the Jackman et al. reference with the other references of record. ” * * * Furthermore, although the Mordey reference teaches the art how depth hardening may be controlled and the degree of hardness varied from the surface inwardly of shafts by means of an alternate current electro-magnet in the manner set forth, it does not suggest how those desirable ends can be attained by means of flame heat.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.