Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 442 F.2d 970 - Claude Gortatowsky v. Mohamad H. Anwar and Marvin Calderon

Claude Gortatowsky v. Mohamad H. Anwar and Marvin Calderon’s Empirical Analysis

442 F.2d 970 · 1971

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
August 2000
most recently cited

1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently August 2000

1 district ·

301971198019902000decided

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 Patterson v. Hauck · Berry v. Webb · Beeber v. Krogh · Anderson v. Pieper · Senkus v. Johnston

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

  1. “In this case * * * we do not see how the laboratory notebook of Gortatowsky could be said to provide the necessary corroboration. In particular, it is noted that the notebook pages were not read and witnessed by anyone. In addition, Gortatowsky testified that he only attempted to keep his notebook entries in chronological order “to a degree” and that it was his practice at times to leave blanks in the notebook which might be filled in at a later date. Thus, there isn’t even adequate evidence here that the notebook itself was in existence and properly kept at the time alleged, let alone sufficient evidence in the notebook itself to in turn corroborate Gortatowsky’s testimony. We, therefore, conclude that the board was correct in holding that Gortatowsky’s proof of reduction to practice fails for lack of proper corroboration. [Emphasis added.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.