Eli Lilly & Co. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
460 F.2d 1096 · 1972
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 7 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 140 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably United States of America, v. Microsoft Corporation, (2001), Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation State of Alaska v. Boise Cascade Corporation (1982)
69 federal appellate · 7 district · 13 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. § 154 · 35 U.S.C. § 282
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood · United States v. Adams
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 140 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'the lack of notice caused the complaining party to withhold certain proof which would show * * * entitlement to relief on the merits.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“". . . where certain fact issues are common to both legal and equitable claims in a lawsuit, only under the most imperative circumstances should a judge proceed first with the equitable claims in such a fashion that he, rather than the jury the parties have demanded, decide those fact issues." 460 F.2d at 1107 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]n appellate court will not interfere with the trial court's exercise of its discretion to control its docket and dispatch its business . . . except upon the clearest showing that the procedures have resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.”
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.