Gardner v. Buxton, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
150 F.2d 242 · 1945
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1963
1 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 Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. · Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. · Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp. · Dow Chemical Co. v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is, of course, not invention, as has been many times said, ‘to produce a device which a skilled mechanic would produce when required to effectuate a given result.’ Frank Adam Electric Co. v. Colt’s Patent Fire Arms Mfg. Co., supra [ 148 F.2d 497, 502 , 8 Cir.].” ( 150 F.2d 244 )”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““But the mere application of a common expedient to an ordinary use in another art, especially where it has not been clearly demonstrated that a recognized problem has existed in the immediate field and has defied previous solution, is not generally invention.” ( 150 F.2d 243 )”
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.