Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 F.2d 223 - In re Pirani

In re Pirani’s Empirical Analysis

75 F.2d 223 · 1935

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
May 1956
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 1956

1 federal appellate ·

150193519401950decided

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.

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

  1. ““* * * Appellants have not seen fit to include in this record the patent to Lanstrom, cited as a reference. * * * In view of the fact that appellants * * * have not included the Lanstrom patent in the record, we must assume that the statement by the examiner of its disclosure is correct. * * * ””
    1 later decision 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.