Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 661 F.2d 1222 - Reese v. Hurst

Reese v. Hurst’s Empirical Analysis

661 F.2d 1222 · 1981

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
1
states following
January 2017
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Water Technologies Corp. v. Calco, Ltd. (1988), Cooper v. Goldfarb (1998)

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

1501981199020002010decided

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 35 U.S.C. § 112 · 35 U.S.C. § 120

Relies on 11 App. D.C. 264 - Mergenthaler v. Scudder · Ivar Jepson v. Robert E. Coleman, Jr., and Calvin D. MacCracken · Patterson v. Hauck · Berry v. Webb · James L. Gianladis v. Gus S. Kass

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

  1. “Independent corroboration may consist of testimony of a witness, other than an inventor to the actual reduction to practice or it may consist of evidence of surrounding facts and circumstances independent of information received from the inventor.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[A]doption of the `rule of reason' has not altered the requirement that evidence of corroboration must not depend solely on the inventor himself.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “The purpose of the rule requiring corroboration is to prevent fraud.”
    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.