Keyes v. Grant’s Empirical Analysis
118 U.S. 25 · 1886
Citation profile
41 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2003 · most notably Coupe v. Royer (1895), Newell Companies, Inc. v. Kenney Manufacturing Company, Defendant/cross-Appellant (1989)
41 federal appellate · 7 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 Randall v. Baltimore O R
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It was insisted by the patentees that no such arrangement and combination were to be found [in the prior art], and that the improvement which they constituted was not the result of mere mechanical skill, but sprung from a genuine effort of invention; and this view was supported by the opinion of many experts skilled in the art. In our opinion, this was a question of fact, properly to be left for determination to the jury, under suitable instructions from the court upon rules of law which should guide them to their verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Clearly it was not' a matter of law that the specifications of the plaintiff’s patent and the publication of Karsten, taken in connection with the drawings, described the same thing. It was a -question of fact properly to be left for determination by the jury, under suitable instructions.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Heide v. Panoulias
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.