Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 136 F.2d 793 - Rembert v. Coe

Rembert v. Coe’s Empirical Analysis

136 F.2d 793 · 1943

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
April 1960
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently April 1960

3 federal appellate · 4 district ·

70194319501960decided

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 Kirsch Mfg. Co. v. Gould Mersereau Co. · Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Coe · L. Sonneborn Sons, Inc. v. Coe · Ruben Condenser Co. v. Copeland Refrigeration Corp. · Morrison v. Coe

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

  1. ““Possibly the patent law should protect such industrial achievements, but it does not; the work of the well-equipped laboratory which by trial and error checks off a series of formulas, may be the proper path of industrial advance, as the Germans found it to be before the Great War; but it does not demand what we call 'invention’. Something more personal to the inventor, something which better measures his imaginative powers, is required.””
    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.