Metallic Extraction Co. v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. ““(1) In an ore-roasting furnace, having means for stirring and advancing-the ore, a supplemental chamber at the side of the main roasting chamber, and cut off from said main chamber by a wall or partition, and carriers in said supplemental chambers, connected with the stirrers, but removed from the direct action of the heat, fumes, and dust, substantially as herein described.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Puget Sound Reduction Co. · Lanyon Zinc Co. v. Brown

2. ““It is urged finally in behalf of the appellant that the decree which was entered by the lower court must, in any event, be modified so as to exempt it from an' accounting for damages resulting from the infringement, because the appellee did not allege in his bill or tender any evidence that he had marked his machines with the word ‘Patented,’ together with the day and year the patent was granted, or prove that the defendant was duly notified of the infringement, as require^ by section 4900 of the Revised Statutes (U. S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3388). In support of this proposition, the appellant cites Dunlap v. Schofield, 152 U. S. 244 , 14 Sup. Ct. 576 , 38 L. Ed. 426 ; also, Coupe v. Royer, 155 U. S. 565 , 584, 15 Sup. Ct. 199 , 39 L. Ed. 263 . With reference to this point, it may be said that, as this is' an appeal taken under the provisions of section 7 of the Act of March 3, 1891, c. 517, 26 Stat. 828 , as amended by the Act of February 18, 1895, 28 Stat. 666 , c. 96 (U, S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 550), the decree below not having as yet become final, the appeal brings before this court for review only so much of the decree as awarded an injunction. Besides, we do not find that the attention of the lower court was directed to that clause of its decree which authorized an accounting as to the damages, and it may be that no damages will ever be claimed by the appellee or assessed in his favor. In view of these considerations, we do not deem it necessary at this time to wade through”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. A. D. Howe Mach. Co. v. Dayton

3. ““A serious objection to many of the furnaces of the type herein shown has been that the chains and their attachments were drawn through the center of the furnaces, and were thereby exposed to the destroying action of the heat, dust, and fumes from the ore, and consequently these parts were soon destroyed. A second objection arose from the fact that the plows or stirrers traveled against the floor of the compartment, which, being usually made of brick, would not. only soon be cut in channels and worn out, but the plows or stirrers themselves would also quickly be worn away. The essential part of my invention lies in constructing the furnaces so that these objectionable features are avoided, and the moving or carrying parts protected from the direct action of the heat, fumes, and dust.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Brown v. Lanyon Zinc Co.