In re Innotron Diagnostics’s Empirical Analysis
800 F.2d 1077 · 1986
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 12 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions — most recently May 2017 · most notably Allison v. Citgo Petroleum Corp. (1998), Hoffman v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1988)
27 federal appellate · 12 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 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1294 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 332
Relies on Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Will v. United States · Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass'n · 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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'[T]he prohibition is not against having two juries review the same evidence, but rather against having two juries decide the same essential issues.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“The district court’s consolidation of the cases produced the same status as that which would have [been] obtained if [the defendant] had filed its patent claim as a counterclaim.... It would, of course, be incongruous to hold that consolidation of a separate suit ... is distinct, in relation to this court’s jurisdiction, from the presence of a counterclaim raising the same allegations of patent infringement that are not “immaterial, inferential, [or] frivolous,” or a “mere joinder.” [Senate Report at 20], Thus, whether allegations of patent infringement be filed and maintained as a viable, non-frivolous counterclaim in a non-patent case, or as a separate complaint which is then consolidated with the non-patent case, the district court’s jurisdiction is based “in part” on § 1338(a) and this court must exercise its exclusive appellate jurisdiction over the entire case. 28 U.S.C. § 1295 (a)(1). Thus the mere labeling and sequencing of pleadings in the trial tribunal cannot be allowed to control every exercise of this court’s appellate jurisdiction.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The court, in furtherance of convenience or to avoid prejudice, or when separate trials will be conducive to expedition and economy, may order a separate trial of any claim, cross-claim, counterclaim, or third-party claim, or of any separate issue or of any number of claims, cross-claims, counterclaims, third-party claims, or issues, always preserving inviolate the right of trial by jury as declared by the Seventh Amendment to the Constitution or as given by a statute of the United States.””
2 later decisions 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.