Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 U.S. 136 - Tilghman v. Proctor

Tilghman v. Proctor’s Empirical Analysis

125 U.S. 136 · 1888

Citation profile

733
cited by 733 later decisions
67
cited 67 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

413 federal appellate · 70 district · 37 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 733 later decisions (67 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), Crowell v. Benson (1932)

413 federal appellate · 70 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 17 states

1280188818901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. · Tilghman v. Proctor · Root v. Railway Co. · Thomson v. Wooster

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

  1. “(T)he conclusions of the master, depending upon the weighing of conflicting testimony, have every reasonable presumption in their favor, and are not to be set aside or modified unless there clearly appears to have been mistake or error on his part.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'The infringer is liable for actual, not for possible gains. The profits, therefore, which he must account for, are not those which he might reasonably have made, but those which he did make, by use of the plaintiff's invention.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““The amount of such royalties or license fees as he {the plaintiff) has been accustomed to receive from thir-i persons for the use of the invention, with interest thereon from the time when they should have been paid by the defendants, is generally, though not always, taken as the measure of his damages”.”
    5 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.