Cover v. Schwartz’s Empirical Analysis
133 F.2d 541 · 1942
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 133 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1998 · most notably Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper (1980), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945)
81 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
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 Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co. · Mills v. Green · David Muskrat v. · Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation
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 133 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[D]ismissal of the suit, as distinguished from dismissal of the appeal, might result in unfairness to appellee by subjecting him to other vexatious actions by appellant.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In other words, appellant is stating that he is asking no relief against anybody before the court (or so far as we know against anyone else), that there is no real dispute, no case or controversy, but that he wants an advisory opinion that his patent is valid. Of course, no federal court can constitutionally give an advisory opinion, since the Constitution confers jurisdiction on federal courts only where there exists a case or controversy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The , court, in deciding against. a patentee plaintiff, may, with propriety, hold (1) that his patent is invalid, . or (2) that the defendant has not com- ■ ; mitted.acts of infringement, or (3) that not only is the patent invalid but also that the .defendant has not infringed; * * *_» (Emphasis supplied.)”
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.