Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 183 F.2d 11 - Ackerman v. Hook

Ackerman v. Hook’s Empirical Analysis

183 F.2d 11 · 1950

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 2001
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2001 · most notably Fourco Glass Company v. Transmirra Products Corporation (1957), Eskimo Pie Corporation v. Whitelawn Dairies, Inc. (1968)

13 federal appellate · 7 district ·

220195019601970198019902000decided

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 Koster v. Lumbermens Mut Casualty Co · Strawbridge v. Curtiss · City of Indianapolis v. Chase Nat Bank of City of New York · Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co. · Strawbridge v. Curtiss

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. ““Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The Reviser’s Notes make it evident that today, 1400(b) stands in the same situation as did Section 109 at the time of the Stonite opinion (supra) in 1942 and that the Stonite case is just as much in point now as then. Therefore, since it did not appear on the motion to dismiss that any of the appellees have ‘a regular and established place of business’ in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Court of that District had no jurisdiction over them under the controlling Section 1400(b).” 2”
    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.