Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 83 F.3d 1390 - Cover v. Hydramatic Packing Co.

Cover v. Hydramatic Packing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

83 F.3d 1390 · 1996

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
June 2009
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Hines v. Davidowitz · Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp. · Florida Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul · Jones v. Rath Packing Co. · Gibbons v. Ogden

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) Explicit pre-emption, whereby Congress explicitly provided for pre-emption of state law in the federal statute; (2) Field preemption, wherein “the scheme of federal regulation is so pervasive as to make reasonable the inference that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it”; and (3) Conflict pre-emption, “where ‘compliance with both federal and state regulation is a physical impossibility,’... or where state law ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress’ ”----”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “there is such a direct conflict between . . . the patent code and . . . [state] law that compliance with both the patent law and state law is a `physical impossibility,' or . . . the state law `stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress' in enacting”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Once the patentee left the picture, so did § 287(a). There is simply nothing on the face of § 287(a) that pertains to anyone but the infringer and the patentee. At issue, therefore, is the legal relationship between two contracting parties, and it is [13 Pa. C.S.A.] § 2312(c) which defines this relationship.”
    1 later decision 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.