Sears v. Gottschalk’s Empirical Analysis
502 F.2d 122 · 1974
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1996 · most notably Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration v. Robertson (1975), McGehee v. Central Intelligence Agency (1983)
13 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1 (American Inventors Protection Act of 1999) · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 122 · 35 U.S.C. § 133 · 35 U.S.C. § 141 · 35 U.S.C. § 154 · 42 U.S.C. § 1306 (§ 1106 of the Social Security Act of 1935)
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Rosado v. Wyman · Environmental Protection Agency v. Mink · Ex parte Poresky · Samuel Bailey v. Joe T. Patterson
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Any person may make written objection to the public disclosure of information contained in any application, report, or document filed . . . or of information obtained by the (Civil Aeronautics) Board or the (Federal Aviation) Administrator . . . . Whenever such objection is made, the Board or Administrator shall order such information withheld from public disclosure when, in their judgment, a disclosure of such information would adversely affect the interests of such person and is not required in the interest of the public.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“we infer that the Third Circuit (in Stretch v. Weinberger ) would be satisfied that the phrase 'applications for patents' sufficiently identifies the class of items Congress deems appropriate for exemption so that the absence of guidelines in § 122 for the exercise of the Commissioner's discretion would not be determinative.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[E]quitable considerations of the costs, in time and money, of making records available for examination do not supply an excuse for non-production.”
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.