Morgan v. Daniels’s Empirical Analysis
153 U.S. 120 · 1894
Citation profile
402 federal appellate · 237 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 938 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2014 · most notably Dickinson v. Zurko (1999), American Hoist Derrick Company v. Sowa & Sons Inc (1984)
402 federal appellate · 237 district · 4 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 Smith v. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. · Cantrell v. Wallick · Coffin v. Ogden · Johnson v. Towsley
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 938 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Upon principle and authority, therefore, it must be laid down as a rule that, where the question decided in the patent office is one between contesting parties as to priority of invention, the decision there made must be accepted as controlling upon that question of fact in any subsequent suit between the same parties, unless the contrary is established by testimony which in character and amount carries thorough conviction.”
23 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“unless the contrary is established by testimony which in character and amount carries thorough conviction.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage“an application to the court to set aside the action of one of the executive departments of the government. The one charged with the administration of the patent system had finished its investigations and made its determination with respect to the question of priority of invention. That determination gave to the defendant the exclusive rights of a patentee. A new proceeding is instituted in the courts — a proceeding to set aside the conclusions reached by the administrative department, and to give to the plaintiff the rights there awarded to the defendant. It is something in the nature of a suit to set aside a judgment, and, as such, is not to be sustained by a mere preponderance of evidence.”
14 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.