Ve Holding Corporation v. Johnson Gas Appliance Company’s Empirical Analysis
917 F.2d 1574 · 1990
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 27 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 233 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2020 · most notably Dakota Industries, Inc. v. Dakota Sportswear, Inc. (1991), Koyo Seiko Co Ltd Usa v. United States Koyo Seiko Co Ltd Usa (1994)
23 federal appellate · 27 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1394 · 28 U.S.C. § 1396 · 28 U.S.C. § 1398 · 28 U.S.C. § 1400 · 28 U.S.C. § 1401
Relies on United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc. · United States v. Turkette · Morton v. Mancari · Richards v. United States · Lorillard v. Pons
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 233 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is axiomatic that statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. And Koyo Corporation of U.S.A., and Isuzu Motors, Ltd. And American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. United States, and the Timken Company, Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. And Koyo Corporation of U.S.A., Inc., and Isuzu Motors, Ltd. And American Isuzu Motors, Inc. v. United States, and the Timken Company · Koyo Seiko Co Ltd Usa v. United States Koyo Seiko Co Ltd Usa
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.