United States v. American Bell Telephone Co.’s Empirical Analysis
167 U.S. 224 · 1897
Citation profile
159 federal appellate · 59 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 442 later decisions (67 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), Ex Parte: Edward T Young (1908)
159 federal appellate · 59 district · 25 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Throckmorton · Topliff v. Topliff · Morgan v. Daniels · United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co. · Van Brocklin v. Anderson
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 442 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party seeking a right under the patents statutes may avail himself of all their provisions, and the courts may not deny him the benefit of a single one. These are questions not of natural but of purely statutory right.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage““In United States v. Telephone Com7 pany, supra, it was decided that where a patent for a grant of any kind issued by the United States has been obtained by fraud, by mistake, or by accident, a suit by the United States against the patentee is the proper remedy for relief, and that in this country, where there is no kingly prerogative, but where patents for land and inventions are issued by the authority of the government, and by officers appointed for that purpose, who may have been imposed upon by fraud or deceit, or may have erred as to their power, or made mistakes in the instrument itself, the appropriate remedy is by proceedings by the United States against the patentee.””
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.