Fregeau v. Mossinghoff’s Empirical Analysis
776 F.2d 1034 · 1985
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Dickinson v. Zurko (1999), Winner International Royalty Corp. v. Ching-Rong Wang (2000)
12 federal appellate · 10 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 141 · 35 U.S.C. § 145 · 35 U.S.C. § 146
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Morgan v. Daniels · Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n the absence of additional evidence affecting a particular finding, a finding of fact by the board may be set aside by the district court if clearly erroneous.... [W]here new evidence is presented to the district court on a disputed fact question, a de novo finding will be necessary to take such evidence into account together with the evidence before the board.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he thrust of [a § 145] complaint is that the decision of the board is erroneous on the facts, the law, or both. Indeed, the board’s, decision is the jurisdictional base for the suit and the record before the office is the evidentiary nucleus. The proceed ing, however, is not simply an appeal since the parties are entitled to submit additional evidence. Thus, an action under § 145 is conducted as a trial; however, it is in essence a suit to set aside the final decision of the board ....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Markman v. Lehman · Gould v. Quigg“In the legislative history addressing the carryover of these procedures into the 1952 Patent Act, it is stated: 'This group of sections [§§ 141-146] makes no fundamental change in the various appeals and other review of Patent Office action.'”
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.