Clark Ex'X v. Wooster’s Empirical Analysis
119 U.S. 322 · 1886
Citation profile
116 federal appellate · 42 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 284 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937), Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover (1959)
116 federal appellate · 42 district · 11 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. · Thomson v. Wooster · Consolidated Safety-Valve Co v. Crosby Steam Gage Value · Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons
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 284 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As to the first point, the bill does not show any special ground for equitable relief, except the prayer for an injunction. To this the complainant was entitled, even for the short time the patent had to run, unless the court had deemed it improper to grant it. If, by the course of the court, no injunction could have been obtained'in. that time, the bill could very properly have been dismissed, and ought to have been. But, by the rules of the court in which the suit was brought, only four days’ notice of application for an injunction was required. Whether one was applied for does not appear. But the court had jurisdiction of the case, and could retain the bill, if, in its discretion, it saw fit to do so, which it did. It might have dismissed the bill, if it had deemed it inexpedient to grant an injunction; but this was a matter in its own sound discretion, and with that discretion it is not our province to interfere, unless it was exercised in a manner clearly illegal. We see no illegality in the manner of its exercise in this case. The jurisdiction had attached, and although, after it attached, the principal ground for issuing an injunction may have ceased to exist by the expiration of the patent, yet there might be other grounds for the writ arising from the possession by the de fondants of folding guides illegally made or procured whilst the patent was in force. The general allegations of the bill were sufficiently comprehensive to meet such a case. But even without that,”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage“but these are more properly the subjects”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is true that where a party alleges equitable ground for relief, and the allegations are not sustained, as where a bill is founded on an allegation of fraud which is not maintained by the proofs, the bill will be dismissed in toto, both as to the relief sought against the alleged fraud, and that which is sought as incidental thereto.””
2 later decisions 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.