Edward S. Irons v. William B. Schuyler, Commissioner of Patents’s Empirical Analysis
465 F.2d 608 · 1972
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably Goland v. Central Intelligence Agency (1978), Ohio Power Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (1989)
34 federal appellate · 9 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. § 122 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Oestereich v. Selective Service System Local Board No. 11 · Lynch v. Overholser · United States v. Rumely · Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korp. · Getman v. National Labor Relations Board
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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Applications for patents shall be kept in confidence by the Patent Office and no information concerning the same given without authority of the applicant or owner unless necessary to carry out the provisions of any Act of Congress or in such special circumstances as may be determined by the Commissioner.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“final opinions, including concurring and dissenting opinions”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“The opinion in Gulick sets forth separately the views of the three judges who decided the case. Two of the judges concurred in holding that the single memorandum there requested under the Freedom of Information Act should be made available as an identified document under Section 552(a)(3) of the Act. The third judge thought the case was moot, and that in any event the memorandum in the circumstances should be made available quite independently of the Freedom- of Information Act. It does not appear that the majority concurred in any views as to the Freedom of Information Act except that the memorandum was an identified record and should be made available as such.”
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.