Hayward v. Andrews’s Empirical Analysis
106 U.S. 672 · 1882
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 11 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2000 · most notably Go-Bart Importing Co. v. United States (1931), Waterman v. Mackenzie (1891)
30 federal appellate · 11 district · 16 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
Relies on Root v. Railway Co. · Thompson v. Railroad Companies · Van Norden v. Morton · Hurt v. Hollingsworth
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the assignee of the chose in action is unable to assert in a court of - law the legal right of the assignor, which in equity is vested in him, then the jurisdiction of a court of chancery may be invoked because it is the proper forum for the enforcement of equitable interests, and because there is no adequate remedy at law; but when, on the other hand, the equitable title is not involved in the litigation, and the remedy is sought merely for the purpose of enforcing the legal right of his assignor, there is no ground for an appeal to equity, because by an action at law in the name of the assignor the disputed right may be perfectly vindicated, and the wrong done by the denial of it fully redressed.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Our conclusion is' that a bill in equity for a naked account of x>rofits and damages against the infringer of a patent cannot be sustained; that such relief ordinarily is incidental to some other equity, the right to- enforce which secures to the patentee his standing in court; that the most general ground for equitable interposition is to insure to the patentee the enjoyment of his specific right by injunction against the continuance of the infringement.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the sole right and privilege of manufacturing and selling”
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.