ADM Corp. v. Speedmaster Packaging Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 271 · 35 U.S.C. § 282 · 35 U.S.C. § 285
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Douglas v. Alabama · Eibel Process Co. v. Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co. · Washburn Moen Manuf'G Co v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire 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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“malicious abuse of process lies for the employment of process in a manner not contemplated by law. Regular and legitimate use of process, though with a bad intention, is not malicious abuse of process.”
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.