Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 127 F.1d 341 - Diamond Match Co. v. Ruby Match Co.

Diamond Match Co. v. Ruby Match Co.’s Empirical Analysis

127 F. 341 · 1904

Citation profile

10
cited by 10 later decisions
July 1958
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently July 1958

5 federal appellate · 3 district ·

50190419101920193019401950decided

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 O'Reilly v. Morse · Railway Company v. Sayles · McCormick v. Talcott · Boyer v. Keller Tool Co. · Smeeth v. Perkins & Co.

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

  1. ““No doubt they are all factors to make up a complete machine, and turn out ■ good matches, and in that remote sense may be said to work together. But mchanically they are distinct parts, acting separately, there being no more connection between the carrier and the mechanism for raising the paraffine wheel under which it passes than between that and the steam boiler or the standards of the supporting frame. To make the raising mechanism effective, a human factor, the hand of the operator, guided by his judgment, must intervene, and without this it has no influence on the product. Unless he sees occasion to act, the match produced will be equally good or equally bad, whether the wheel-raising mechanism is there or not. It is not as though it were automatic, raising the matches out of the bath on the stoppage of the carrier, and lowering that again on the resumption of its course. That might be regarded as directly co-operating with the other parts named to effect the general result.””
    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.