In re Tucker’s Empirical Analysis
54 F.2d 815 · 1932
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently November 1964 · most notably In re Wagenhorst (1933), In re Gruschwitz (1963)
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 Smart v. Wright · Dean v. Davis · In re Tucker · In re Burnelli · Blythe Co. v. Hinckley
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We feel therefore constrained to hold that even if the Board’s rejection of the claims involved is regarded as proper, when reasons other than those assigned by it are considered, we would not be justified in affirming such action on such grounds.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““* * [wjas it proper for this court to affirm the action of the Board of Appeals and the examiner in rejecting the claims on grounds other than the grounds of rejection set out and relied upon by the lower tribunals?” [My emphasis.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“shall be confined to the points set forth in the reasons of appeal.”
2 later decisions 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.