Evans v. Eaton’s Empirical Analysis
16 U.S. 454 · 1818
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2022 · most notably Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp. (1928), Gayler v. Wilder (1850)
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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.
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I claim as my invention, the peculiar properties or principles which this machine possesses in the spreading, turning and gathering the meal at one operation and the raising and lowering of its arms by its motion, to accommodate itself to any quantity of meal it has to operate upon.” ( 7 Wheat. 428 , 20 U.S. 428 . 5 L.Ed. 490 )”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““A Auditing the words ‘originally discovered’ to be explained or limited by the subsequent words, still, if the thing had been in use, or had been discovered, in a public work, anterior to the supposed discovery, the patent is void. It may he that the patentee had no knowledge of this previous use or previous description. Still his patent is void; the law supposes he may have known it.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The second error alleged in.the charge, is in directing the jury to-.find for the. defendant, if'they should, be of opinion that the Hopperboy . was in use prior to the improvement alleged to be made thereon by Oliver Evans. This part of the charge seems ito be founded -on the opinion, that if the patent is to. be consiered as a grant of the exclusive use of. distinct improvements, it is a grant for the Hopperboy itself, ..and not for an improvement on; the Hopper-boy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Evans v. Eaton
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.