Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 156 F.2d 483 - Addressograph-Multigraph Corp. v. Cooper

Addressograph-Multigraph Corp. v. Cooper’s Empirical Analysis

156 F.2d 483 · 1946

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
December 1999
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently December 1999 · most notably Kaspar Wire Works, Inc. v. Leco Engineering & Machine, Inc. (1978), Schlegel Manufacturing Co. v. USM Corp. (1975)

22 federal appellate · 3 district ·

220194619501960197019801990decided

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 United States v. Swift & Co. · Chicot County Drainage District v. Baxter State Bank · Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co · Heiser v. Woodruff · Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.

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

  1. ““[I]n a decree, at least in one entered by consent, either an adjudication of infringement, or a grant of some relief from which infringement may be inferred, is essential before any effect of res judicata can be given to it on the issue of validity.” 10”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the public interest in a judicial determination of the invalidity of a worthless patent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “should not remain in the art as a scarecrow.”
    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.