342 F. Supp. 821 - Voight v. Kraft’s Empirical Analysis
1972
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1991
2 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 35 U.S.C. § 31 · 35 U.S.C. § 32
Relies on American Well Works Company v. Layne & Bowler Company E · T. B. Harms Company v. Edward Eliscu and Ross Jungnickel, Inc. · Eckert v. Braun
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.
“The relationship of this suit to patents is happenstance and incidental. The substance of the claim is the alleged tortious conduct of the defendants. The complaint sets up no patent property right which is being infringed, misused, or defeated____ Patent law is not an essential ingredient of the case nor does the case require any interpretation of the patent laws and there certainly is no suggestion of any paramount national or federal interest in the dispute between these litigants in what is essentially a common law action sounding in tort.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“no mention of relief for the disgruntled client of a patent attorney.”
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.