Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 930 F.2d 573 - Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Manuel

Unique Concepts, Inc. v. Manuel’s Empirical Analysis

930 F.2d 573 · 1991

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
July 2014
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently July 2014 · most notably Scholes v. Lehmann (1995), Channell v. Citicorp National Services, Inc. (1996)

12 federal appellate · 6 district ·

270199120002010decided

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. § 1295 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 28 U.S.C. § 1631

Relies on Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Harbor Insurance v. Continental Bank Corp. · Clark v. Universal Builders, Inc. · Kennedy Pf v. Wright

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

  1. “[i]f the district judge had used Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) to separate the [state-law] claims from the patent claims, then [plaintiff] would have a better argument. That final decision really would depend wholly on § 1332 [for jurisdiction].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “need not decide whether Rule 54(b) can be used to direct an appeal to a particular circuit.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “came, in part, from (a well-pleaded complaint under) § 1338”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.