BV Engineering v. University of California’s Empirical Analysis
858 F.2d 1394 · 1988
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Regents of the University of California v. Lilly & Co. (1997), Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co. (1993)
28 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 17 U.S.C. § 301 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 501 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 601 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 17 U.S.C. § 602 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Edelman v. Jordan · Hans v. State of Louisiana · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon · Richards v. United States
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is well settled that in interpreting a statute we must consider each provision in the context of the statute as a whole.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pride · Hebbring v. U.S. Trustee“The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
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.