Pan American Petroleum Corporation v. Superior Court of Delaware in and for New Castle County Texaco Inc’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
195 federal appellate · 72 district · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 572 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Baker v. Carr (1962), Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California (1983)
195 federal appellate · 72 district · 57 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 15 U.S.C. § 717 · 15 U.S.C. § 717R · 15 U.S.C. § 717U
Relies on Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co. · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co. · Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin
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 572 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for removal.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 711 [the jurisdictional provision] does not deprive the state courts of the power to determine questions arising under the patent laws, but only of assuming jurisdiction of ‘cases’ arising under those laws. There is a clear distinction between a case and a question arising under the patent laws. The former arises when the plaintiff in his opening pleading — be it a bill, complaint or declaration — sets up a right under the patent laws as ground for a recovery. Of such the state courts have no jurisdiction. The latter may appear in the plea or answer or in the testimony. The determination of such question is not beyond the competency of the state tribunals.” (Emphasis in the original.) 168 U.S. at page 259 , 18 S.Ct. at page 64 . 2”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The District Courts of the United States and the United States courts of any Territory or other place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of violations of this chapter or the rules, regulations, and orders thereunder, and of all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by, or to enjoin any violation of, this chapter or any rule, regulation, or order thereunder.”
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.