Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 324 F.2d 1013 - Torsten Hasselstrom and Malcolm C. Henry v. Blaine C. McKusick

Torsten Hasselstrom and Malcolm C. Henry v. Blaine C. McKusick’s Empirical Analysis

324 F.2d 1013 · 1963

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
states following
May 2000
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently May 2000 · most notably Patterson v. Hauck (1965), Berry v. Webb (1969)

5 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

28019631970198019902000decided

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 Thurston v. Wulff · Benjamin Phillips and Paul S. Starcher v. Arthur W. Carlson · Searle v. Glarum · Senkus v. Johnston

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

  1. “the purpose of corroborative evidence is to confirm and to strengthen the testimony of the inventor.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Corroborative evidence” is generally defined as additional evidence of a different character tending to prove the same point or fact. In other words, it is evidence tending to confirm and to strengthen or to show the truth or probability of truth of a witness’ testimony.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “(t)hat a party in an interference proceeding is rarely in a position to present evidence contradicting his opponent's testimony as to his acts of invention.”
    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.