Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 U.S. 47 - Wright v. Yuengling

Wright v. Yuengling’s Empirical Analysis

155 U.S. 47 · 1894

Citation profile

157
cited by 157 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
November 1987
most recently cited

73 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 157 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1987 · most notably Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant (1987), Cimiotti Unhairing Company v. American Fur Refining Company (1905)

73 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 state decisions

3801894190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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. Nichols · Hall v. Macneale · Gage v. Herring · Water-Meter Company v. Desper

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

  1. ““The patentee, having described it in the specification, and declared it to be an essential feature of Ms invention, and having made it an element of these two claims, is not now at liberty to say that it is immaterial, or that a device which dispenses with it is an infringement, though it accomplish the same purpose in, perhaps, an equally effective manner.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If the combination of the trough and cylindrical guide of the Wright patent gives greater lightness and strength to the frame than the combination of the trough and the flat guides of the Farrar patent, it is a mere difference in degree, and carrying forward of an old idea — a result, perhaps, somewhat more perfect than had theretofoie been attained, but not rising to the dignity of invention. We have repeatedly held patents of this description to be invalid.””
    2 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.