In re Bailey Meter Co.’s Empirical Analysis
102 F.2d 843 · 1939
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently February 1987
1 district · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 81
Relies on Barber-Colman Co. v. Overhead Door Corp. · In re American Cyanamid & Chemical Corp.
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.
“[T]he appellant concludes [“Boiler Meter”] does not name the device to which it is applied. However, this argument ignores the fact that the product of appellant is a meter and that it is used in connection with boilers. It is, therefore, a boiler meter. Indeed, we are unable to see how the device could be more aptly described. Words used in combination may not be found in the dictionary, or elsewhere, in the precise combination used but it does not follow from this that they are not the correct nomenclature for particular things. As the brief of the solicitor points out “bam key” may not appear in the dictionary but it is the proper name for a key to a bam. Mere use of the words in combination does not destroy the significance of their meaning or their descriptive properties. [Id. at 844.]”
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.