Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 296 F.3d 1098 - Manning v. Paradis

Manning v. Paradis’s Empirical Analysis

296 F.3d 1098 · 2002

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
February 2023
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently February 2023

4 federal appellate · 2 district ·

60200220102020decided

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 Gartside · Cooper v. Goldfarb · Fujikawa v. Wattanasin · Estee Lauder Inc. v. L'Oreal, S.A. · David M. Rapoport v. William C. Dement, Mark R. Rosekind, and Jeffrey L. Schwimmer

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

  1. “are, regrettably, confusing. But the majority perpetuates the confusion in reaching its result. And its approach threatens to render superfluous a substantial body of law starting with the Supreme Court's seminal City of Elizabeth case. I discuss these two problems in turn. A To know whether and when the inventor determined that the invention would work for its intended purpose for reduction to practice, we must first know what the”
    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.