Kirschke v. Lamar’s Empirical Analysis
426 F.2d 870 · 1970
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2010
8 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 Morgan v. Daniels · International Union, United Automobile, Aircraft & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Anderson · Washington v. Summerfield · Geach v. Illinois · Schilling v. Schwitzer-Cummins 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The provision of 35 U.S.C. § 146 which provides for review of the Board of Interferences by civil action in a district court explicitly states that the administrative record may be admitted ‘without prejudice to the right of the parties to take further testimony.’ We are aware that this provision has received varying interpretations in the circuits. In our view, since an action under 35 U.S.C. § 146 has the hybrid nature of an appeal and a trial de novo, the statute authorizes the district court to accept all proffered testimony on issues raised by the parties during the proceedings below or by the board’s decision. Whether under some circumstances a district court may properly restrict the admission of testimony on an issue raised before the board is not before us. The court here accepted the testimony and we find no error in its doing so.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(t)he viability of the administrative process presupposes that pertinent and available testimony will be presented before the appropriate administrative body.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a deliberate, intentional, or willful withholding, or suppression of pertinent and available evidence from the Patent Office, whether attended by reprehensible motives or not, whether it be for tactical or other reasons, justifies exclusion of such evidence in a § 146 proceeding.”
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.