Altvater v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis
319 U.S. 359 · 1943
Citation profile
242 federal appellate · 68 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 557 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably United Public Workers of America v. Mitchell (1947), Deposit Guaranty National Bank v. Roper (1980)
242 federal appellate · 68 district · 2 state decisions
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedAltvater v. Freeman (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Aetna Life Ins Co of Hartford Conn v. Haworth · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co. · Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co. · Electrical Fittings Corp. v. Thomas
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 557 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“To hold a patent valid if it is not infringed is to decide a hypothetical case.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A justiciable controversy is ... distinguished from a difference or dispute of a hypothetical or abstract character; from one that is academic or moot____ The controversy must be definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests____ It must be a real and substantial controversy admitting of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] controversy was raging, even apart from the continued license agreement. That controversy was “definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.” That controversy concerned the validity of the reissue patents. Those patents had many claims in addition to the single one involved in the issue of infringement. And petitioners were manufacturing and selling additional articles claimed to fall under the patents. Royalties were being demanded and royalties were being paid. But they were being paid under protest and under the compulsion of an injunction decree. It was to lift the heavy hand of that tribute from the business that the counterclaim was filed.”
2 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.