United States v. Blasius’s Empirical Analysis
397 F.2d 203 · 1968
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably The Wilderness Society v. Rogers C. B. Morton, Secretary of the Interior (1973), United States v. Rone (1979)
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 31 · 35 U.S.C. § 33
Relies on Richards v. United States · Topliff v. Topliff · Blasius v. United States · United States v. Oregon · Sperry v. State of Florida the Florida Bar
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is a presumption against construing a statute as containing superfluous or meaningless words or giving it a construction that would render it ineffective.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The proper function of legislative history is to solve and not to create an ambiguity, Railroad Commission of State of Wisconsin v. Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co., 257 U.S. 563 , 589, 42 S.Ct. 232 , 66 L.Ed. 371 (1922); Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate of Ridgeway, 291 F.2d 257, 260 (3rd Cir.1961); Montgomery Charter Serv., Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 34 , 325 F.2d 230, 233 (1963).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whoever, not being recognized to practice before the Patent Office, holds himself out or permits himself to be held out as so recognized, or as being qualified to prepare or prosecute applications for patent, shall be fined not more than $1,000 for each offense.””
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.