Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 U.S. 152 - Rude v. Westcott

Rude v. Westcott’s Empirical Analysis

130 U.S. 152 · 1889

Citation profile

332
cited by 332 later decisions
10
cited 10 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

102 federal appellate · 40 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 332 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Sessions v. Romadka (1892), Rite-Hite Corporation Hmh Hoj Rb We v. Kelley Company Inc (1995)

102 federal appellate · 40 district · 6 state decisions

47018891890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Tilghman v. Proctor · Root v. Railway Co. · Seymour v. McCormick · Birdsall v. Coolidge

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

  1. “must be paid by such a number of persons as to indicate a general acquiescence in its reasonableness by those who have occasion to use the invention.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The avoidance of the risk and expense of litigation will always be a potential motive for a settlement.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The concluding provision, that the net profits arising from sales, royalties, or set-. tlements, or other source, are to he divided between the parties to the assignment so as to give the patentee one-fourth thereof, does not, in any respect, modify or limit the absolute transfer of title. It is a provision by which the consideration for the transfer is-to be paid- to the grantor out of the net profits made; it reserves to him no control over the patents or their use or disposal, or any power to interfere with the management of the business growing out of their ownership.””
    2 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.