Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 406 U.S. 706 - Brunette MacHine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc.

Brunette MacHine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

1972

Citation profile

391
cited by 391 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

60 federal appellate · 77 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 391 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Leroy v. Great Western United Corp. (1979), Hohn v. United States (1998)

60 federal appellate · 77 district · 1 state decisions

1480197219801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1400

Relies on Fourco Glass Company v. Transmirra Products Corporation · Roberts v. Florida · Haines v. Kerner · Ex Parte Shaw · Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd 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 391 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Congress does not in general intend to create venue gaps.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Absent some express congressional intent to the contrary, a special venue provision should not, under the clear language of Brunette be deemed exclusively controlling when the defendant involved is an alien. The principle that an alien may be sued in any district is simply too deeply rooted to assume otherwise.”
    3 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.