Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 F.2d 992 - Jensen v. Lorenz

Jensen v. Lorenz’s Empirical Analysis

92 F.2d 992 · 1937

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
May 2015
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2015 · most notably In re Allen (1940), United States ex rel. White v. Coe (1938)

7 federal appellate · 3 district ·

150193719401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Bakelite Corp. v. National Aniline & Chemical Co. · Walther v. Vanderveer

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

  1. “It is our opinion that the plaintiffs took an appeal to the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals by force of the proceedings taken by them with the Commissioner. They served notice upon the Commissioner of their intention to appeal, and they filed in the Patent Office within forty days, which was the time required, their reasons of appeal specifically set forth in writing. Other steps were necessary to be taken in the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals to perfect the appeal, but, in so far as the Patent Office was concerned, the appeal had been taken by the action of the appellants as above set out. Bakelite Corporation v. National Aniline & Chemical Co., 83 F. (2d) 176, 177 (C. C. A. 2d).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.