Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 F.1d 494 - McMullen v. Bowers

McMullen v. Bowers’s Empirical Analysis

102 F. 494 · 1900

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
September 1974
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently September 1974

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

3019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Pratt v. Paris Gaslight Coke Co · Starin v. Mayor Etc of the City of New York Independent Steam-Boat Co · Hartell v. Tilghman · James G. Wilson v. George A. Sanford and Robert G. Musgrove · Albright v. Teas

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

  1. ““In the present case no question is presented as to the validity of any of the appellee’s patents. There is no question in the case that involves the construction of any act of congress in relation to the patent laws. All the cases hold; where the question is discussed, that suits growing out of contracts made in relation to patent rights are governed by the general principles of law and equity, and not by the patent laws, and are triable in the state courts, and that the rights of the patentee under the patent laws of the United States must be directly, and not collaterally, brought in issue, to give the United States courts jurisdiction.” McMullen v. Bowers, 42 C. C. A. 470 , 102 Fed. 494 , 501.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ * •;= « we do not agree that either party can oí his own volition declare the contract rescinded, and proceed precisely as if nothing had been done un dor it. If it is to be rescinded, it can be done only by a mutual agreement, or by the decree oí a court of ,justice.””
    1 later decision 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.