Kenyon v. Automatic Instrument Co.’s Empirical Analysis
160 F.2d 878 · 1947
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently June 2009 · most notably 48 Cal. 2d 208 - Farmland Irrigation Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957), Hook v. Hook & Ackerman, Inc. (1951)
16 federal appellate · 4 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 Waterman v. Mackenzie · United States v. General Electric Co. · Rude v. Westcott · Ager v. Murray · Hendrie v. Sayles
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 40 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The assignment of a patent must be in writing to fulfill the requirements of the federal statute. Though no particular form of words is required the instrument of transfer must be unambiguous and show a clear and unmistakable intent to part with the 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.