Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 150 U.S. 38 - Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co.

Corbin Cabinet Lock Co. v. Eagle Lock Co.’s Empirical Analysis

150 U.S. 38 · 1893

Citation profile

180
cited by 180 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

83 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 180 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. (1898), Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. (1935)

83 federal appellate · 26 district · 1 state decisions

5601893190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Topliff v. Topliff · Shepard v. Carrigan · Miller v. Brass Co. · James v. Campbell · Roemer v. Peddie

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

  1. ““Having originally sought broader claims, which were rejected, and having acquiesced in such rejection, and having withdrawn such claims, and substituted therefor this narrower claim, describing a particular or specific lock, as such, neither the patentee nor his assignees can be allowed, under the authorities, to insist upon such construction of the allowed claim as would cover what had been previously rejected.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]o warrant new and broader claims in a reissue, such claims must not be merely suggested or indicated in the original specification, drawings, or models, but it must further appear from the original patent that they constitute parts or portions of the invention, which were intended or sought to be covered or secured by such original patent.”
    3 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.