Shattuck v. Hoegl’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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

1. “If this rationale applies to an ordinary witness, it should apply with even more force to a witness such as Weigl. Although nominally a non-party to the patent interference, he is an employee of Xerox, one of the real parties in interest. His refusal to testify or produce the documents sought was pursuant to instructions from the Xerox attorneys. 1969); In re Natta, 410 F.2d 187 (3d Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 396 U.S. 836 , 90 S.Ct. 95 , 24 L.Ed.2d 87 ; Natta v. Zletz, 405 F.2d 99 (7th Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 395 U.S. 909 , 89 S.Ct. 1753 , 23 L.Ed.2d 223 ; Natta v. Hogan, 392 F.2d 686 (10th Cir. 1968); In re Natta, 388 F.2d 215 (3d Cir. 1968); Natta v. Zletz, 379 F.2d 615 (7th Cir. 1967); In re Hogan, 309 F.Supp. 945 (D.C.Del.1970); In re Natta, 48 F.R.D. 319 (D.C.Del.1969); Hogan v. Zletz, 43 F.R.D. 308 (N.D.Okl.1967), modifying Natta v. Hogan, 392 F.2d 686 (10th Cir. 1968); In re Natta, 264 F.Supp. 734 (D.C.Del. 1967), aff’d 388 F.2d 215 (3d Cir. 1968); and In re Natta, 259 F.Supp. 922 (D.C.Del. 1966), aff’d 388 F.2d 215 (3d Cir. 1968).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shattuck v. Hoegl

2. “In allowing review in Natta, we think that the Seventh Circuit failed to distinguish between the situation of a party, as distinguished from that of a non-party. Such distinction strikes us as crucial. In the Carter Products situation, the court to which the appeal in. the main action would be taken would have no power to direct production by a non-party outside its jurisdiction; hence no review of such a disclosure order would be possible unless in the ancillary jurisdiction. The following is a list, not warranted to be complete, of published opinions on various rulings: Montecatini Edison, S.p.A. v. duPont de Nemours & Co., 434 F.2d 70 (3d Cir. 1970); Natta v. Zletz, 418 F.2d 633 (7th Cir. Similarly, a court which reviews a Patent Office determination may order production by a party to the interference if it thinks such production is warranted. On the other hand, where disclosure is sought from a party, the court which reviews the main action will always have the requisite jurisdiction to order disclosure.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shattuck v. Hoegl

3. “None of these cases convinces us that we should decline to follow our decision in Tucker v. Peiler, especially where, as here, production of documents and testimony of witnesses has been ordered. We thus distinguish the instant case from one where a district court has denied production of documents or taking of testimony. In that situation, the district court order may very well be final since, as the Sixth Circuit pointed out in Oschner, no other court may ever be in a position to order production.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shattuck v. Hoegl