Wright v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[t]he more difficult issue for the Court is whether the clamps that the Court defines as packages control detonation as opposed to merely facilitating the transfer of detonation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Wright v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2002-08-28· cited 7×
• Wright v. United States
  Federal Claims· 2003-05-01· cited 3×

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al.
  Supreme Court· 1996-04-29· cited 3,226×
• Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co.
  Supreme Court· 1997-03-03· cited 1,430×
• Vivid Technologies, Inc. v. American Science & Engineering, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1999-12-29· cited 369×
• Mannesmann Demag Corporation, Cross-Appellee v. Engineered Metal Products Co., Inc., Cross-Appellant
  Federal Circuit· 1986-06-12· cited 171×
• Alpex Computer Corporation, Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Nintendo Company Ltd. And Nintendo of America, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1997-01-15· cited 82×
• Biovail Corporation International, Biovail Laboratories,inc., and Galephar P.R., Inc. Ltd. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-02-13· cited 73×
• Bose Corporation v. Jbl, Inc. And Infinity Systems Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2001-12-17· cited 60×
• The Toro Company v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc. And Wci Outdoor Products, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-09-24· cited 42×
• Smith & Nephew, Inc. And John O. Hayhurst, M.D. v. Ethicon, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-12-12· cited 22×
• Intermatic Incorporated, Plaintiff-Cross v. The Lamson & Sessions Co., Intermatic Incorporated v. Lamson & Sessions Co.
  Federal Circuit· 2001-12-17· cited 17×