In re Hien’s Empirical Analysis
166 U.S. 432 · 1897
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2012 · most notably Hoover Co. v. Coe (1945), United States Baldwin Co v. Robertson (1924)
16 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe · Gandy v. Marble
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In addition, any party aggrieved by a decision of the Commissioner of Patents in any interference case, may appeal therefrom to said court of appeals.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although, as was said by this court in [Hoe ], the proceeding by bill in equity, under section 4915, on the refusal to grant an application for a patent, intends a suit according to the ordinary course of equity practice and procedure, and is not a technical appeal from the patent-office, nor confined to the case as made in the record of that office, but is prepared and heard upon all competent evidence adduced, and upon the whole merits, yet the proceeding is, in fact and necessarily, apart of the application for the patent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hyatt v. Doll“bill in equity. This mean[t] a proceeding in a court of the United States having original equity jurisdiction under the patent laws, according to the ordinary course of equity practice and procedure. It [wa]s not a technical appeal from the patent-office, like that authorized in section 4911, confined to the case as made in the record of that office, but [wa]s prepared and heard upon all competent evidence adduced, and upon the whole merits.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hyatt v. Doll
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.