In re Butler’s Empirical Analysis
37 F.2d 623 · 1930
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc. (2009), In re Shortell (1949)
2 federal appellate ·
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 Burt · Oval Wood Dish Co. v. Sandy Creek, N. Y., Wood Manuf'g Co. · Globe Nail Co. v. United States Horse Nail Co.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Where it is possible to define a product by its characteristics, the practice is clearly settled that this should be done. Where, however, the product is novel and involves invention and cannot be defined except by the steps of the process involved in its creation, there are cases holding that such a claim may be allowed, and it has been sustained by a Court.”
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.