Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 122 U.S. 432 - Gandy v. Marble

Gandy v. Marble’s Empirical Analysis

122 U.S. 432 · 1887

Citation profile

151
cited by 151 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

56 federal appellate · 38 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 151 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Hoover Co. v. Coe (1945), United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen (1904)

56 federal appellate · 38 district · 2 state decisions

28018871890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 · Miller v. Brass Co. · Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe · Butler v. Shaw

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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Although, as was said by this court in [Hoe ], the proceeding by bill in equity, under section 4915, on the refusal to grant an application for a patent, intends a suit according to the ordinary course of equity practice and procedure, and is not a technical appeal from the patent-office, nor confined to the case as made in the record of that office, but is prepared and heard upon all competent evidence adduced, and upon the whole merits, yet the proceeding is, in fact and necessarily, apart of the application for the patent.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““See. 4915. Whenever a patent on application is refused, either by the Commissioner of Patents or by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia upon appeal from the Commissioner, the applicant may have remedy by bill in equity: and the court having cognizance thereof, on notice to adverse parties and other due proceedings had, may adjudge that such applicant is entitled, according to law, to receive a patent for his invention, as specified in Ms claim, or for any part thereof, as the facts in the case may appear. * « * ””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““The decision of the court on a bill in equity [under § 4915] becomes, equally with the judgment of the supreme court of the District of Columbia on a direct appeal under section 4911, the decision of the patent-office, and is to govern the action of the commissioner.” 10”
    3 later decisions 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.