Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 100 CAL 672 - Schmidt v. Brieg

Schmidt v. Brieg’s Empirical Analysis

1893

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
5
states following
July 1997
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 1997 · most notably Stork Restaurant, Inc. v. Sahati (1948), Dunston v. Los Angeles Van & Storage Co. (1913)

2 federal appellate · 20 state decisions

5018931900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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

Relies on McLean v. Fleming · Brown Chemical Co. v. Meyer · Lawrence Manuf'G Co v. Tennessee Manuf'G Co · Choynski v. Cohen · Pierce v. Guittard

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

  1. ““We think the words ‘Sarsaparilla and Iron’ are generic terms, and were used for the purpose of indicating, not so much the origin, manufacture, or ownership of the beverage, as the quality of the article itself. * * * The words ‘Sarsaparilla and Iron’ describe ingredients well known to the public. * * * But it is claimed by respondents [plaintiffs below] that the words ‘Sarsaparilla and Iron’ do not, in fact, indicate the character, kind, or quality of their beverage; that it is not a composition of sarsaparilla and iron, but a solution of various substances; that it contains only a small quantity of sarsaparilla, and a small quantity of iron, and the name was given to the beverage only' as a name by which it might be known, without in any way being descriptive; but it is sufficient to sayBin answer to this claim that the name given to the article is either generic, or it is of such a character that it can as well be applied to defendants’ beverage as to the plaintiffs’.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.