Andrews v. Daughtry’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 17 U.S.C. § 101 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1446 · 28 U.S.C. § 1454
Relies on Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. · Gaiman v. McFarlane · Lovern v. General Motors Corp. · In re Bear River Drainage District
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before the Rules were revised in 2007, Rule 6(b) allowed a court to extend a deadline for “cause shown”; now Rule 6(b) allows a court to extend a deadline for “good cause.” The change was “intended to be stylistic only,” and did not affect the substance of the rule. 4B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1165 n. 9 (3d ed.2002) (citing Advisory Committee’s Note to the 2007 Amendment to Rule 6). In the Rule 6(b) context, then, “cause shown” and “good cause” are not substantively different.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) In general. A civil action in which any party asserts a claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents ... may be removed to [federal] district court....”
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.