Henning v. Hunt’s Empirical Analysis
223 F.2d 926 · 1955
Citation profile
8
cited by 8 later decisions
July 1964
most recently cited
1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 141
Relies on Johnson v. Stevenson · Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe · In re Roberts · International Cellucotton Products Co. v. Coe · Avery v. Chase
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * For the orderly administration of the law, the giving full force to the court's decision was the only course which the patent office tribunals could have followed, unless of course, new issues and facts were presented in the inter partes action which were not considered in the ex parte action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“We are of the opinion that the Patent Office tribunals did not err in the weight accorded to and their interpretations of the findings and conclusions in ex parte Civil Action No. 20,023 since Henning has not shown that the facts are contrary to what was found by the district 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.