Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 F.2d 827 - In re Switzer

In re Switzer’s Empirical Analysis

166 F.2d 827 · 1948

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
April 1981
most recently cited

2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 1981 · most notably Application of Borcherdt (1952), In re Lund (1967)

2 district ·

17019481950196019701980decided

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 In re Stover · In re Williford

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

  1. “The examiner correctly held that * * * [appellants] did not antedate or avoid the three abandoned applications which were referred to in the Hempel patent as co-pending applications of which the patent application was a continuation-in-part. Those earlier applications are part of the record herein and two of them disclose the use of the titanium dioxide just as the patent does. (Emphasis added)”
    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.