Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 131 U.S. 88 - Fowle v. Park

Fowle v. Park’s Empirical Analysis

131 U.S. 88 · 1889

Citation profile

127
cited by 127 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
March 1987
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 16 district · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 127 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1987 · most notably Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. United States (1939), Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange (1926)

19 federal appellate · 16 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 10 states

33018891890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Gibbs v. Consolidated Gas Co. of Baltimore · Oregon Steam Navigation Company v. Winsor

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

  1. ““Relating as these contracts did to a compound involving a secret in its preparation; based as they were upon a valuable consideration, and limited as to the space within which, though unlimited as to the time for which, the restraint was to operate, we are unable to perceive how they could be regarded as so unreasonable as to justify the court in declining to enforce them. The vendors were entitled to sell to the best advantage, and in so doing to exercise the right to preclude themselves from entering into competition with those who purchased, and to prevent competition between purchasers; and the purchasers were entitled to such protection as was reasonably necessary for their benefit. Williams had and transferred property in the secret process of manufacturing the article he had discovered, and he and his grantees could claim relief as against breaches of trust in respect to it. The policy of the law is to encourage useful discoveries by securing their fruits to those who make them. If the public found the balsam efficacious, they were interested in not being deprived of its use, but by whom it was sold was unimportant.””
    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.