Margolis v. Banner’s Empirical Analysis
599 F.2d 435 · 1979
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2010
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 35 U.S.C. § 102 · 35 U.S.C. § 103 · 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 133 · 35 U.S.C. § 135 · 35 U.S.C. § 141
Relies on Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n · La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. · McClellan v. Carland · Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Ruckelshaus
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[0]ne of the powers that this new article I court, like any other U.S. court, would have is the power to issue whatever writs are necessary to conduct its business. Section 1651 of title 28, United States Code, provides: The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. I would expect the court to utilize this power when it [is] ... necessary for it to do so in order for justice to prevail.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The examiner’s demands, under threat of abandonment, that petitioners do more than they did amounted to a de facto rejection of petitioners’ claims. The subsequent ruling of abandonment by the Deputy Assistant Commissioner, precluding petitioners from an appeal to the Board of Appeals from the de facto rejection, clearly had the effect of frustrating this court’s prospective appellate jurisdiction over an appeal from a decision of the Board of Appeals [Footnote and citations omitted]. Id. at 443 , 202 USPQ at 372-73.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Makari“it would place in another court the discretionary power to preserve the prospective appellate jurisdiction of this court”
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.