Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 U.S. 252 - Waterman v. Mackenzie

Waterman v. Mackenzie’s Empirical Analysis

138 U.S. 252 · 1891

Citation profile

1,388
cited by 1,388 later decisions
38
cited 38 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

421 federal appellate · 216 district · 50 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,388 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969), Topliff v. Topliff (1892)

421 federal appellate · 216 district · 50 state decisions — followed in 19 states

259018911900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Gayler v. Wilder · Root v. Railway Co. · Littlefield v. Perry · Birdsell v. Shaliol

Cited together with Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. · Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & Machine Works · Gayler v. Wilder · United States v. General Electric Co. · Littlefield v. Perry

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 1,388 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Whether a transfer of a particular right or interest under a patent is an assignment or a license does not depend upon the name by which it calls itself, but upon the legal effect of its provisions.”
    74 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “There can be no doubt that he is “the party interested, either as patentee, as-signee, or grantee,” and as such entitled to maintain an action at law to recover damages for an infringement; and it cannot have been the intention of [C]ongress that a suit in equity against an infringer to obtain an injunction and an account of profits, in which the court is authorized to award damages, when necessary to fully compensate the plaintiff, and has the same power to treble the damages as in an action at law, should not be brought by the same person.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““By a mortgage of personal property, differing in this respect from a pledge, it is not merely the possession or a special property that passes; but, both at law and in equity, the whole title is transferred to the mortgagee, as security for the debt, subject only to be defeated by performance of the condition, or by redeinption on bill in equity within a reasonable time; and the right of possession, when there is no express stipulation to the contrary, goes with the right of property.””
    4 later decisions 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.