Kennedy v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently March 2013
1 district · 3 state decisions
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. § 2201
Relies on Davis v. Alaska · Southern Railway Co. v. North Carolina · Bridges v. United States · Oyler v. Adams · E. F. Drew & Co. v. Reinhard
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The dispute ... becomes academic for this Court can discern no difference in the law applied by the apposite decisions of the respective jurisdictions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““For the employer to be entitled to a patent it is not necessary that the contract should specifically so provide.” It “is a question to be decided upon all the facts of the individual case.” In short, such a contract may be implied from the relations of the parties.”
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.