Aladdin Mfg. Co. v. Mantle Lamp Co.’s Empirical Analysis
116 F.2d 708 · 1941
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 81 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1998 · most notably Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co. (1967), Maternally Yours, Inc. v. Your Maternity Shop, Inc. (1956)
41 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 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 Tilghman v. Proctor · Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company v. Wolf Brothers & Company · Root v. Railway Co. · Rubber Company v. Goodyear · Scott v. Donald
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 81 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In the present case, there was direct proof that because of the fraudulent and wilful infringement and unfair competition of appellee, appellant incurred legal expenses aggregating $18,-515.03. Counsel’s fees necessitated by the tort have been said in some instances to be recoverable as a part of the compensatory damages and in other cases as a part of exemplary damages. As the master’s finding of wilful and fraudulent conduct is sustained by the evidence, this sum was recoverable as compensatory damages and hence properly included in the amount recommended by him.” Aladdin Mfg. Co. v. Mantle Lamp Co., 7 Cir., 116 F.2d 708, 717 .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Inasmuch as the jurisdiction of a court of equity had attached here, it had jurisdiction, in order to furnish full relief, to grant everything that might be recovered at law. * * * If the facts warranted, exemplary or punitive damages were properly allowed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Exemplary damages are allowed against a tort feasor whose acts are intentionally fraudulent, malicious, wilful or wanton. They have always been recoverable at common law. Scott v. Donald, 165 U. S. 58 , 17 S. Ct. 265 , 41 L. Ed. 632 .””
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.