Kennedy Pf v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
851 F.2d 963 · 1988
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. (2002), Incorporated v. Zeidenberg
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 35 U.S.C. § 102
Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“). Electrical Workers and Wronke v. Marsh, 767 F.2d 354 (7th Cir.1985), like other recent decisions dealing with the allocation of cases among circuits, stress the importance of simple rules that conserve the time that courts and counsel must devote to jurisdictional questions, so that more time is available to deal with the merits. 17 It is not hard to appreciate that trying to make appellate jurisdiction track the ground of the district court's decision could complicate matters. What if the district court should give multiple or alternative bases of decision? (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Kennedy v. Wright“. Gulley v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112 , 57 S.Ct. 96, 97 , 81 L.Ed. 70 (1936). Our case entails questions about validity as well as ownership, so Kennedy's claim for relief arises under the patent laws, but perhaps the approach in Harms is well suited to determining appellate jurisdiction. 10 Such an approach would not be the first time an apparently”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Kennedy v. Wright“interests cut in favor of distributing state law issues to courts with geographic jurisdiction, even as they support central handling of patent questions. Judge Friendly's influential opinion in T.B. Harms Co. v. Eliscu, 339 F.2d 823 (2d Cir.1964), held that a dispute about the ownership of a copyright did not”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Kennedy v. Wright
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.