Ajinomoto Co. v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Co.’s Empirical Analysis
228 F.3d 1338 · 2000
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 district ·
Relationships
Relies on White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security · Kingsdown Medical Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister Inc. · Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc. · Wl Gore Associates Inc v. Garlock Inc · North River Insurance v. Cigna Reinsurance 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A proper motion to alter or amend judgment must rely on one of three major grounds: (1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence not available previously; or (3) the need to correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“at the time the patent application was filed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Singh v. Brake“materially changed by subsequent processes,”
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.