In re James’s Empirical Analysis
83 F.2d 313 · 1936
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 1963
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 In re Ebert
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Appellant’s arguments have received our careful consideration, but we are unable to escape the conclusion reached below that double patenting would result from the allowance of the claims. The mere fact that appellant may .have made certain disclosures as to properties not disclosed in the patent is hot of itself sufficient to support an additional patent. * * *” [Note: No such disclosures were made in the instant application.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Christmann
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.