Smith v. General Foundry Mach. Co.’s Empirical Analysis
174 F.2d 147 · 1949
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 1977 · most notably Bobertz v. General Motors Corp. (1955), Scharmer v. Carrollton Manufacturing Co. (1975)
14 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Miller v. Eagle Manuf'G Co · Smith v. Snow · Frederick Hart & Co. v. Recordgraph Corp. · Royal Typewriter Co. v. Remington Rand, Inc. · Florence-Mayo Nuway Co. v. Hardy
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. The combination with a drying house including side walls and end walls, of a plurality of spaced independent fuel burning heating units located within the house and arranged in series adjacent the walls thereof, a main fuel supply located exteriorly of the house, a fuel feed pipe located inside the house and connecting all of the units, and a single inlet pipe connecting the main fuel supply and the fuel feed pipe. 4 "2. The combination with a drying house including side walls and end walls, of a plurality of spaced independent fuel burning heating units located within the house and arranged in series extending substantially around and adjacent the walls thereof, means located above the units for supporting articles to be dried, spaced baffle means interposed between the units and the articles, and a screen interposed between the baffle means and the articles. 5 "7. The combination with a drying house including side walls and end walls, of a plurality of spaced independent fuel burning heating units located within the house and arranged in series extending substantially around and adjacent the walls thereof, means located above the units for supporting articles to be dried, and spaced baffle means interposed between certain of said heating units and the article supporting means, the baffle means comprising imperforate portions disposed directly above the associated burners and perforated portions disposed at the side of said imperforate portions.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The plaintiff makes the additional point that there is no precedent in this court for disposing of a question of patent infringement by summary judgment. The practice, however, is not unknown and is properly adopted where as provided in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, rule 56(e), 28 U.S.C.A., there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Frederick Hart & Co., Inc., v. Recordgraph Corp., 3 Cir., 169 F.2d 580 ; Allen v. Radio Corporation of America, D.C.Del., 47 F.Supp. 244 ; Rubinstein v. Silex Co., D.C.S.D. N.Y., 73 F.Supp. 336 ; S. R. Leon, Inc. v. Parfums Schiaparelli, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 35 F.Supp. 641 ; John T. McCoy, Inc. v. Schuster, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 44 F.Supp. 499 ; Brown v. Ford Motor Co., D.C.E.D.Mich., 57 F.Supp. 825 ; Juniper Mills, Inc. v. J. W. Landenberger & Co., D.C.E.D.Pa., 6 F.R.D. 463 .””
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.