Servaas & Co. v. Dritz’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2000
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 Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Arnstein v. Porter · Doehler Metal Furniture Co. v. United States · Subin v. Goldsmith · Vermont Structural Slate Co. v. Tatko Bros. Slate 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In patent infringement litigation, the court must exercise unusual caution before disposing of the case summarily. [Citations omitted] “Summary judgment will not be granted in a patent infringement case where, for example, the court lacks necessary special knowledge; or where it is desirable to hear expert witnesses and to hear them cross-examined; or where there are conflicting affidavits as to differences and similarities in construction and function ; or where there are conflicts concerning the meaning of the specifieations and claims, the interpretations of the file wrapper and the Patent Office action, and the significance of the prior art.” Ser Vaas & Co., Inc. v. Dritz, 185 F.Supp. 61, 63 (S.D.N.Y. 1960).”
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.