In re Youker’s Empirical Analysis
77 F.2d 624 · 1935
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently February 1964
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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
Relies on Skelly Oil Co. v. Universal Oil Products Co. · In re Smith · Universal Oil Products Co. v. Skelly Oil Co. · Universal Oil Products Co. v. Skelly Oil 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Since he has not antedated them (those applications having been filed prior to the application of appellant), they show prior invention of their subject-matter, and we must assume that appellant may not properly be held to be the first inventor of anything disclosed by them, or of anything not patentably distinct from them. In re Smith, 36 F.2d 522 , 17 C.C.P.A., Patents, 752.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Walker
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.