In re Mark Industries’s Empirical Analysis
751 F.2d 1219 · 1984
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Indiana Michigan Power Co. v. United States (2005), Rotec Industries Inc v. Mitsubishi Corporation Tucker Associates Inc Garry Tucker Mitsubishi International Corporation (2000)
6 federal appellate ·
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. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 35 U.S.C. § 252 · 35 U.S.C. § 281 · 35 U.S.C. § 282 · 35 U.S.C. § 284
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc. · Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland · La Buy v. Howes Leather Co.
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A statute is by definition the law to be followed--not disregarded, effectively repealed, rewritten or overruled (unless unconstitutional)--in the federal courts.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“A finding may be held clearly erroneous when ... the appellate court is left with a `definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'”
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.