Pope Manuf'G Co v. Gormully’s Empirical Analysis
144 U.S. 224 · 1892
Citation profile
142 federal appellate · 32 district · 28 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 313 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2014 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Olmstead v. United States (1928)
142 federal appellate · 32 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Insurance Company v. Morse · Marble Company v. Ripley · Willard v. Tayloe · Doyle v. Continental Insurance
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 313 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is as important to the public that competition should not be repressed by worthless patents, as that the patentee of a really valuable invention should be protected in his monopoly....”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““To stay the arm of a court of equity from enforcing a contract it is by no means necessary to prove that it is invalid; from time to time immemorial, it has been the recognized duty of such courts to exercise a discretion, to refuse their aid in the enforcement of unconscionable, oppressive, or iniquitous eon-tract,-, and to turn the party claiming the benefit of such contract over to a court of law. * * * ‘Omission or mistake in the agreement, or that it is unconscieutions or unreasonable, or that there has been concealment, mis-repivseifiation, or any unfairness, are enumerated among the causes which' wLU induce the court to refuse its aid.’ ””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Newton v. Wooley · Marks v. Gates““It is impossible to define with accuracy what is meant by that public pol icy for an interference and violation of which a contract may be declared invalid. It may be understood in general that contracts which are detrimental to the interests of the public as understood at the time fall within the ban.””
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.