Lamle v. Mattel, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
2003
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 271
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Cable Electric Products, Inc. v. Genmark, Inc. · Suntiger Inc Biomedical Optics Company of America Inc v. Scientific Research Funding Group · Telectronics Pacing Systems, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc. · Campbell v. Hewitt, Coleman & Associates, Inc.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We do not hold that any of the above are actually genuine disputes of materiál fact that preclude summary judgment. But neither can we confidently conclude that Lamle has presented no evidence that-would entitle him to a trial on any of his three articulated theories of relief. While we think some of Lamle’s arguments are more meritorious than others, we will not usurp, the role of the district court by imposing our own views about which, if any, of Lamle’s claims necessitate further factual development or a trial on the merits.”
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.