Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 373 U.S. 379 - Sperry v. State of Florida the Florida Bar

Sperry v. State of Florida the Florida Bar’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

727
cited by 727 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

131 federal appellate · 75 district · 243 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 727 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2022 · most notably National League of Cities v. Usery (1976), Johnson v. Avery (1969)

131 federal appellate · 75 district · 243 state decisions — followed in 23 states

17301963197019801990200020102020decided

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 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 31 · 35 U.S.C. § 32 · 35 U.S.C. § 33 · 35 U.S.C. § 6 · 43 U.S.C. § 1464 · 5 U.S.C. § 1005

Relies on Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Gibbons v. Ogden · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · United States v. Darby · Huron Portland Cement Company v. City of Detroit Michigan

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

  1. “[a] State may not enforce licensing requirements which, though valid in the absence of federal regulation, give 'the State's licensing board a virtual power of review over the federal determination' that a person or agency is qualified and entitled to perform certain functions,”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[s]uch conduct inevitably requires the practitioner to consider and advise his clients as to the patentability- of their inventions under the statutory criteria, 35 U.S.C. §§ 101-103 , 161, 171, as well as to consider the advisability of relying upon alternative forms of protection which may be available under state law. It also involves his participation in the drafting of the specification and claims of the patent application, 35 U.S.C. § 112 , which this Court long ago noted “constitute[s] one of the most difficult legal instruments to draw with ■ accuracy.””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Moreover, since patent, practitioners are authorized to practice only before the Patent Office, the State maintains control over the practice of law within its borders except to the limited extent necessary for the accomplishment of the federal objectives.””
    5 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.