Ims Pc v. Alvarez’s Empirical Analysis
129 F.3d 618 · 1997
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 70 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Axiom Resource Management, Inc. v. United States (2009), Pacific Shores Subdivision California Water District v. United States Army Corps of Engineers (2006)
6 federal appellate · 70 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
Relies on Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Camp v. Pitts · Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion · Service v. Dulles · Vitarelli v. Seaton
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior.' ” IMS, P.C. v. Alvarez, 129 F.3d 618, 624 (D.C.Cir.1997) (quoting Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142-43 , 93 S.Ct. 1241 , 36 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973) (per curiam) and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, 401 U.S. at 420, 91 S.Ct. 814 ). Plaintiffs state generally that”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every patentee not residing in the United States may file in the Patent and Trademark Office a written designation stating the name and address of a person residing within the United States on whom may be served process or notice of proceedings affecting the patent or rights thereunder. If the person designated cannot be found at the address given in the last designation, or if no person has been designated, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia shall have jurisdiction and summons shall be served by publication or otherwise as the court directs. The court shall have the same jurisdiction to take any action respecting the patent or rights thereunder that it would have if the patentee were personally within the jurisdiction of the court.”
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.