Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 177 U.S. 485 - Mast Foos Company v. Stover Manufacturing Company

Mast Foos Company v. Stover Manufacturing Company’s Empirical Analysis

177 U.S. 485 · 1900

Citation profile

840
cited by 840 later decisions
34
cited 34 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

393 federal appellate · 125 district · 59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 840 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2020 · most notably Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc (1966), Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp. (1938)

393 federal appellate · 125 district · 59 state decisions — followed in 15 states

12701900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedElectric Manuf'g Co. v. Edison Electric Light Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Potts v. Creager · Smith v. Vulcan Iron Works · Western Electric Co. v. LaRue · Electric Manuf'g Co. v. Edison Electric Light Co.

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 840 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “repeated litigation of the same question.”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Long Island College Hospital v. National Labor Relations Board · Welsbach Light Co. v. Cosmopolitan Incandescent Light Co.
  2. ““There is no doubt the patent laws sometimes fail to do justice to an individual who may, with the light he had before him, have exhibited inventive talent of a high order, and yet be denied a patent by reason of antecedent devices which actually existed, but not to his knowledge, and are only revealed after a careful search in the Patent Office. But the statute (section 4886) is inexorable. It denies the patent, if the device were known or used by others in this country before his invention.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. O'Rourke Engineering Const. Co. v. McMullen · American Steel & Wire Co. of New Jersey v. Denning Wire & Fence Co.
  3. “save the parties from further litigation”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Thournir v. Buchanan · Highland Glass Co. v. Schmertz Wire Glass Co.

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.