Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
909 F.2d 1459 · 1990
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably Biodex Corporation v. Loredan Biomedical Inc (1991), Cross Medical Products, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. (2005)
17 federal appellate · 9 district · 1 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. § 1292
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Kerotest Mfg Co v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · Planned Parenthood League v. Bellotti · Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Dingwell
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“litigation against or brought by the manufacturer of infringing goods takes precedence over a suit by the patent owner against customers of the manufacturer.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Litigation against or brought by the -manufacturer of infringing goods 'takes precedence over a suit by the patent owner against customers of the manufacturer .... “At the root of [this] preference ... is' the recognition that, in reality, the manufacturer is the true defendant in the customer suit ... it is a simple fact of life that a manufacturer must protect its customers, either as a matter of contract, or good business, or in order to avoid the damaging impact of an adverse ruling against its products.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in the person's absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties, or (2) the person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in the person's absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of the claimed interest.”
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.