Blodgett v. Richter’s Empirical Analysis
79 F.2d 922 · 1935
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1959
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 In re Langmuir · In re Walker
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * the question here is solely one of priority, and we are not called upon to determine the matter of patentability to Richter. ****** “It is not meant to intimate that the counts expressed as claims in appellants’ patent are not so supported by the disclosure there, as that there is any question of their validity as to a class of compounds, nor is it meant to suggest what the rights of appellee may be under his disclosure upon any question except the single one of priority. All other questions, we think, must be determined in some proceeding other than the one now at bar.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Wahlforss
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.