Combs v. Plough, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
681 F.2d 469 · 1982
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 2007
6 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 1338
Relies on Luckett v. Delpark, Inc. · Excelsior Wooden Pipe Company v. Pacific Bridge Company · New Marshall Engine Company v. Marshall Engine Company · Wade v. Lawder · Mahogany Ass'n v. Black & Yates, 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. Such jurisdiction shall be exclusive of the courts of the states in patent, plant variety protection and copyright cases.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The general rule is that where an action is brought to enforce, set aside, or annul a contract, the action arises out of the contract, and not under the patent laws, even though the contract concerns a patent right.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction of all cases arising under the patent laws, but not of all questions in which a patent may be the subject matter of the controversy.”
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.