Florsheim v. Schilling’s Empirical Analysis
137 U.S. 64 · 1890
Citation profile
115 federal appellate · 26 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 197 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1966 · most notably Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950), Lovell Manuf'G Co v. Cary (1893)
115 federal appellate · 26 district ·
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 Julia Hotchkiss Executrix of John Hotchkiss Deceased John Davenport and John Quincy v. Miles Greenwood · Reckendorfer v. Faber · Brown v. Piper · Hailes v. Van Wormer · Pickering v. McCullough
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 197 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The argument js advanced that the combination in this corset of the prior inventions secured and put into use by prior patents, making it a superior and cheaper article, is itself a patentable invention. We are unable to agree with appellant’s counsel on this point.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““The argument is advanced that the combination in this corset of the prior inventions secured and put into use by prior patents, making it a superior and cheaper article, is itself a patentable invention. We are unable to agree with appellants’ counsel on this point. In Pickering v. McCullough, 104 U.S. 310, 318 , [ 26 L.Ed. 749 ], this court, speaking through Mr. Justice Matthews, said: ‘In a patentable combination of old elements, all the constituents must so enter into it as that each qualifies every other. * * * It must form either a new machine of a distinct character and function, or produce a result due to the joint and co-operating action of all the elements, and which is not the mere adding together of separate contributions.’ ‘The combination of old devices into a new article, without producing any new mode of operation, is not invention.’ Burt v. Evory, supra, [ 133 U.S. 349 , 10 S.Ct. 394 , 33 L.Ed. 647 ]. See, also, Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353 , [ 22 L.Ed. 241 ]; Reckendorfer v. Faber, 92 U.S. 347 , [ 23 L.Ed. 719 ] ; Double Pointed Tack Co. v. Two Rivers Manufacturing Co., 109 U.S. 117 , 3 S.Ct. 105 , [ 27 L.Ed. 877 ]; Bussey v. Excelsior Mfg. Co., 110 U.S. 131 , 4 S.Ct. 38 , [ 28 L.Ed. 95 ]; Phillips v. Detroit, 111 U.S. 604 , 4 S.Ct. 580 , [ 28 L.Ed. 532 ]; Stephenson v. Brooklyn Railroad Co., 114 U.S. 149 , 5 S.Ct. 777 , [ 29 L.Ed. 58 ]; Beecher Mfg. Co. v. Atwater Mfg. Co., 114 U.S. 523 , 5 S.Ct. 1007 , [ 29 L.Ed. 232 ]; Thatcher Heating Co. v. Burtis”
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.