Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 101 U.S. 99 - Baker v. Selden

Baker v. Selden’s Empirical Analysis

101 U.S. 99 · 1879

Citation profile

326
cited by 326 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

141 federal appellate · 35 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 326 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co. (1991), Mazer v. Stein (1954)

141 federal appellate · 35 district · 7 state decisions

7401879188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Gay v. Parpart

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

  1. “[W]here the art [that a science book] teaches cannot be used without employing the methods and diagrams used to illustrate the book, or such as are similar to them, such methods and diagrams are to be considered as necessary incidents to the art[.]”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Congress shall have power to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their writings and discoveries.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““To give to the author'of the book an exclusive property in the art described therein, when no examination of its novelty has ever been officially made, would be a surprise and a fraud upon the public. That is the province of letters-patent, not of copyright. The claim to an invention or discovery of an art or manufacture must be subjected to the examination of the Patent Office before an exclusive right therein can.be obtained; and it can only be secured by a patent from the government.””
    2 later decisions 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.