Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 F.2d 395 - Blanc v. Curtis

Blanc v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis

119 F.2d 395 · 1941

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
September 1967
most recently cited

12 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 1967

12 federal appellate ·

100194119501960decided

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 Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters · Sun Ray Gas Corp. v. Bellows-Claude Neon Co. · National Battery Co. v. Richardson Co. · Ford Motor Co. v. Gordon Form Lathe Co. · Baldwin Rubber Co. v. Paine & Williams Co.

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

  1. ““The claim of a patent must be read in the light of the invention disclosed and cannot be given a construction broader than the teachings of the patent as shown by the drawings and specifications.” Blanc v. Curtis, 6 Cir., 1941, 119 F.2d 395, 397 .”
    3 later decisions 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.