Hapgood v. Hewitt’s Empirical Analysis
119 U.S. 226 · 1886
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 32 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 257 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2012 · most notably Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain (1989), United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp. (1933)
74 federal appellate · 32 district · 54 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Hiram Barber v. Huldah a Barber by Her Next Friend George Cronkhite · William McClurg v. Lawrence Kingsland · Oliver v. Rumford Chemical Works · Grand Chute v. Winegar
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 257 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There is nothing set forth in the bill as to any agreement between the corporation and Hewitt that the former was to have the title to his inventions, or to any patent that he might obtain for them. The utmost that can be made out of the allegations is that the corporation was to have a license or right to use the inventions in making plows. It is not averred that anything passed between the parties as to a patent. We are not referred to any case which sustains the view that, on such facts as are alleged in the bill, the title to the invention or patent for it passed.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In devising and constructing the plough, Hewitt was only performing his duty as an employee of the corporation, and carrying out his contract with it; that he was doing only what he was hired and paid to do; that the result of his labors belonged to the corporation; that it-became, in equity and good conscience, the true and rightful owner of the right to manufacture the plough; that, if there is any part thereof which is patentable, the patent belonged to the corporation as equitable assignee of Hewitt; and that he was and is bound, in equity and good conscience, to make an assignment of the patent to the corporation or to its trustees.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whatever license resulted to the Missouri corporation, from the facts of the case, to use the invention, was one confined to that corporation, and not assignable by it... As to any implied license to the assignor, it could not pass to the assignee. 100”
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.