Morrin v. Robert White Engineering Works’s Empirical Analysis
138 F. 68 · 1905
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1935
2 federal appellate · 5 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 Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. · Wilson v. Simpson · Cotton-Tie Co. v. Simmons · Edwin Chaffee v. The Boston Belting Company · Goodyear Shoe Machinery Co. v. Jackson
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.
““An element of a patented combination may be replaced by the purchaser, of his own authority (1) when its consumption was the very purpose of the device; (2) when its use upon external objects must work its early destruction; (3) when it was intended to be destroyed and was destroyed after a sin}?lo use, and became waste material; (4) when, in the arrangement of an element, not the chief element, it is so fashioned and placed as to be specially subjected to external forces that make it peculiarly liable to breakage and wear, like the knuckle in the car coupler; (5) when it is not the chief part of the combination, like the trolley stand; (6) when it is an ordinary working part, like the cam in actuating machinery, although specially adapted for the proper operation of the device, and the decision is broad enough to cover a cam which is the most essential element in a combination. But a part of a combination may not be replaced by the purchaser when it is the vital element of the combination, in fact, and in regard to patentability, especially when it is not intended to be of short life by the action of external forces thereon.””
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.