Ives v. Sargent’s Empirical Analysis
119 U.S. 652 · 1887
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Topliff v. Topliff (1892), Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. (1935)
40 federal appellate · 14 district · 4 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 Mahn v. Harwood · Wollensak v. Reiher · Coon v. Wilson
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It follows from this that if, at the date of the issue of the original patent, the patentee had been conscious of the nature and extent of his invention, an inspection of the patent, when issued, and an examination of its terms, made with that reasonable degree of care which is habitual to and expected of men in the management of their own interests, in the ordinary affairs of life, would have immediately informed him that the patent had failed fully to cover the area of his invention. And this must be deemed to be notice to him of the fact, for the law imputes knowledge when opportunity and interest, combined with reasonable care, would necessarily impart it.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““He assumed, without examination, that the specification and claims of his ¡original] patent were just what he had desired and intended they should bo, aud rested quietly in ignorance of the error and of Ms rights for nearly 3 years, and then did not discover them until after others had discovered that he had lost the right to repair his error by his neglect to assert it within a reasonable time.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It follows from this that if, at the date of the issue of the original patent, the patentee had been conscious of the nature and extent of his invention, an inspection of the patent, when issued, and an examination of its terms, made with that reasonable degree of care which is habitual to and expected of men ill the management of their own interests in the ordinary affairs of life, would have immediately informed him that the patent had failed fully to cover the area of his invention; and this must be deemed to he notice to him of tin; fact, for the law imputes knowledge when opportunity and interest, combined with reasonable care, would necessarily impart it.””
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.