green
Positive treatment
2.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1953 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1953
1989
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Classic Instruments, Inc. v. VDO-Argo Instruments, Inc.
See also Schreyer v. Casco Products Corp., 190 F2d 921 (2nd Cir 1951), cert den 341 US 913 .
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Telephone News System, Inc. v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co.
(4×)
See, e. g., Chicago v. Willett Co., 406 Ill. 286 , 94 N.E. 2d 195 (1950), vacated, 341 U.S. 913 , 71 S.Ct. 734 , 95 L.Ed. 1349 , clarified, 409 Ill. 480 , 101 N.E.2d 205 (1951), reversed on other grounds, 344 U.S. 574 , 73 S. Ct. 460 , 97 L.Ed. 559 (1953).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oriental Foods, Inc. v. Chun King Sales, Inc.
See also Crest Specialty v. Trager, 341 U.S. 912 , 71 S.Ct. 733 , 95 L.Ed. 1349 , where the Supreme Court, by per curiam opinion, summarily held invalid a patent previously upheld by the district and circuit courts. 4 This Court has only recently reaffirmed its long held position that the question of novelty and invention is one of fact as to which the conventional clearly erroneous test is applicable.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Oriental Foods, Inc., a Corporation v. Chun King Sales, Inc., and Jeno F. Paulucci, Chun King Sales, Inc., and Jeno F. Paulucci v. Oriental Foods, Inc., a Corporation
See also Crest Specialty v. Trager, 341 U.S. 912 , 71 S.Ct. 733 , 95 L.Ed. 1349 , where the Supreme Court, by per curiam opinion, summarily held invalid a patent previously upheld by the district and circuit courts. 4 This Court has only recently reaffirmed its long held position that the question of novelty and invention is one of fact as to which the conventional clearly erroneous test is applicable.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McKnight
v.
Board of Public Education
v.
Board of Public Education
No. 649.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Apr 23, 1951.
Hayden C. Covington for appellants. J. Roy Dickie for appellees.
Published
Appeal from the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Per Curiam: The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for the want of a substantial federal question.