Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The citing opinions applied Christianson's patent jurisdiction test or its law of the case principles, including the decision's own clear error exception. Other opinions reported another court's treatment, addressed a party's argument, or used treatment language about a different decision.
2,587 later cases cite Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.; 155 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.
Every one of the 155 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace