Shum v. Intel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
629 F.3d 1360 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 256 · 35 U.S.C. § 262
Relies on Farrar v. Hobby · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Freytag v. Commissioner · Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense v. Padilla et al.
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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“there can only be one prevailing party in a given case”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Gaye · Williams v. Gaye“the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding costs to each party with respect to the claims on which they each prevailed, then netting those sums to arrive at the final figure.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Gaye · Williams v. Gaye“costs-other than attorney's fees-should be allowed to the prevailing party.”
2 later decisions 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.