Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 U.S. 525 - Ryder v. Holt

Ryder v. Holt’s Empirical Analysis

128 U.S. 525 · 1888

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
June 1974
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1974 · most notably United Drug Co. v. Theodore Rectanus Co. (1918), Standard Paint Company v. Trinidad Asphalt Manufacturing Company (1911)

11 federal appellate · 7 district ·

801888189019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Farmers' Friend Manufacturing Co. v. Challenge Corn-Planter 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Tlie registration under the statute only confers a right to it in foreign commerce, and a claim for infringement, or to be protected against infringement, cannot arise under tlie constitution or laws of the United States unless the infringément is upon the right to use it in foreign commerce, which can only be by using the trade-mark without right in such commerce. The jurisdiction is not conferred at all by express words of the statute, but only by providing a mode of acquiring a right, a suit for the invasion of which would arise under the laws of the United States, within the act of 1875. The clause quoted from is restrictive of that jurisdiction. Tlie defendants do not infringe upon any right resting- upon the laws of the United States unless they use the trade-mark in foreign commerce, and jurisdiction of a suit for such infringement is not left in the courts of the United Stales unless such infringement consists in using the trade-mark by the defendants upon goods intended to be transported to a foreign country.””
    1 later decision 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.