Malignani v. Hill-Wright Electric Co.’s Empirical Analysis
177 F. 430 · 1910
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently June 1945
3 federal appellate · 3 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 Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company · Union Typewriter Co. v. L. C. Smith & Bros. · Waterman v. Shipman · United Shoe Machinery Co. v. Duplessis Shoe Machinery Co. · Hennebique Const. Co. v. Myers
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The essence of the process is found to exist in the intensive incandescence of the filament in the attenuated atmosphere at a time when the vapor of a suitable solid substance is present in the bulb, so that the precipitation of its gaseous contents is effected and the desired vacuum obtained.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Suitable substances capable of being gasified by heat and combining with the gases generated by the filament when brought to incandescence to form solid or liquid precipitations.””
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.