Boesch v. Graff’s Empirical Analysis
133 U.S. 697 · 1890
Citation profile
74 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 189 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co. (1937), Henry v. A. B. Dick Co. (1912)
74 federal appellate · 16 district · 6 state decisions
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 · Kimberly v. Arms · Kennon v. Gilmer · Rude v. Westcott · Adams v. Burke
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 189 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right which Hecht had to make and sell the burners in Germany was allowed him under the laws of that country, and purchasers from him could not be thereby authorized to sell the articles in the United States in defiance of the rights of patentees under a United States patent. A prior foreign patent operates under our law to limit the duration of the subsequent patent here, but that is all. The sale of articles in the United States under a United States patent cannot be controlled by foreign laws.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When the patented machine rightfully passes to the hands of the purchaser from the patentee, or from any other person by him authorized to convey it, the machine is no longer within the limits of the monopoly. * * * By a valid sale and purchase, the patented machine becomes the private individual property of the purchaser, and is no longer protected by the laws of the United States. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““When, however, a plaintiff: seeks to recover because he has been compelled to lower his prices to compete with an infringing defendant, he must show that his reduction in prices was due solely to the acts oí the defendant, or to what extent it was due to such acts. Cornely v. Marckwald, 131 U. S. 159 , 9 Sup. Ct. 744 , 33 L. Ed. 117 . There must be some data by which the actual damages may be calculated. New York City v. Ransom, 23 How. (U. S.) 487, 36 L. Ed. 512 ; Rude v. Westcott, 130 U. S. 152 , 9 Sup. Ct. 463 , 32 L. Ed. 888 .””
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.