Larson v. Eicher’s Empirical Analysis
49 F.2d 1029 · 1931
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 1965
1 federal appellate ·
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 Harrison v. Cadwell · St. John v. Schulze · Harrison v. Cadwell
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellee was an experienced chemist. He knew the therapeutic value of the ingredients in the tablets he manufactured, and, having successfully performed the involved process, and produced the involved product, which he did in March or April, 1920, he had reduced the invention to practice. Marion M. Harrison and Harold A. Morton v. Sydney M. Cadwell, 39 F.2d 704 , 17 C.C.P.A. [Patents] 1024, and cases therein cited; St. John et al. v. Schulze, 47 F.2d 798 , 18 C.C.P.A. [(Patents) 1050]. * * *””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kyrides v. Bruson
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.