Consolidated Roller Mill Co. v. Walker’s Empirical Analysis
138 U.S. 124 · 1891
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1952 · most notably Lovell Manuf'G Co v. Cary (1893), Charles Peckat Mfg. Co. v. Jacobs (1949)
43 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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 Hollister v. Benedict Burnham Manuf'G · Thompson v. Boisselier · Pennsylvania Co v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co · Hill v. Wooster · Burt v. Evory
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To understand the nature of the invention intended to be covered by the first claim, resort must be had to the specification, and we there find that the ‘swivel boxes’ are essential to the contemplated greater movement at one end of the shaft than at the other, whereby is effected ‘the tightening of the belt or belts at one side of the machine, without disturbing those at the other.’ This is apparent on the face of the paragraph hereinbefore quoted at length; and th¡e expert testimony is direct and convincing, that, to the practical working of the described device as a belt tightener, this swiveling feature is indispensable. Without the swiveled boxes Gray would not have ‘independently adjustable bearings.’ True, those boxes are not expressly mentioned in the claim; but we think they are to be regarded as entering therein by necessary implication, for the reason just stated, as well as by force of the words ‘as shown.’ Moreover, the prior state of the art would limit the claim to the specific organization shown and described.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the mere carrying forward of an original conception, resulting in an improvement, in degree simply, is not invention”
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.