Leggett v. Standard Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
149 U.S. 287 · 1893
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 20 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Leeds Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company (1909), French Republic v. Saratoga Vichy Spring Co. (1903)
33 federal appellate · 20 district · 6 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 McLean v. Fleming · Galliher v. Cadwell · Mahn v. Harwood · Miller v. Brass Co. · Speidel v. Henrici
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““So lar' as the alleged promise embodies any element of a contract or of an undertaking to compensate the complainant for the use of his so-called secret, the statute of limitations and laches interposed by the defendant was clearly a bar to any recovery on that ground, because the alleged promise, if the proof was sufficient to establish it, was made in September, 1873, and the amended bill seeking relief thereon was not filed until January 13, 1888—some 14 or 15 years later. This lapse of time not only constitutes a bar, such as the statute of limitations interposes, but shows such laches as will clearly preclude any right to relief. McLean v. Fleming, 96 U. S. 245 ; Speidel v. Henrici, 120 U. S. 377 ; Galliher v. Cadwell, 145 U. S. 368 , 372. No sufficient reason is given for this delay in suing. It is sought to be excused on the ground of the plaintiff’s poverty during this period; but in the case of Hayward v. National Bank, 96 U. S. 611 , 618, this court said that a party’s poverty or pecuniary embarrassment was not a sufficient excuse for postponing the assertion of his rights. So that this alleged promise of the defendant can in no way avail the complainant in the present case, either as a ground on which to predicate any claim for relief or as an estoppel upon the defendant from denying the validity of the patent.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This invention has nothing to do with the glue-lined barrel as an article of manufacture, but relates particularly to a new and inexpensive process of constructing a glue-lined barrel, cask, etc.””
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.