Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 107 U.S. 192 - Atlantio Works v. Brady Brady

Atlantio Works v. Brady Brady’s Empirical Analysis

107 U.S. 192 · 1882

Citation profile

1,071
cited by 1,071 later decisions
55
cited 55 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
June 2010
most recently cited

425 federal appellate · 214 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,071 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2010 · most notably Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950), Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co. (1964)

425 federal appellate · 214 district · 20 state decisions

197018821890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

Cited together with Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · Thompson v. Boisselier · Hollister v. Benedict Burnham Manuf'G · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc

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 1,071 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The design of the patent laws is to reward those who make some substantial discovery or invention, which adds to our knowledge and makes a step in advance in the useful arts. Such inventors are worthy of all favor. It was never the object of those laws to grant a monopoly for every trifling device, every shadow of a shade of an idea, which would naturally and spontaneously occur to any skilled mechanic or operator in the ordinary progress of manufactures. Such an indiscriminate creation of exclusive privileges tends rather to obstruct than to stimulate invention.””
    70 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Interested as he is in the result of the suit, his own testimony cannot be allowed to prevail against a course of conduct so utterly at variance with it. It may be true; but we cannot give it effect against what he himself did, and did not do, without disregarding the ordinary laws that' govern human conduct.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “as the best possible plan that could be devised, and that, although deeply interested in the success of the operations [with which the device was to be used], he never alluded to or hinted at any plan of his own devising different from it”
    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.