In re Brosnahan’s Empirical Analysis
18 F. 62 · 1883
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1970
3 federal appellate ·
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 Ex parte McCardle · Brown v. Maryland · Ex parte Siebold · Sturges v. Crowninshield · Martin Fairfax v. Hunter's
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is to be observed that no constitutional or statutory provision of the United States was, or ever has been, necessary to the right of any person to make an invention, discovery, or machine, or to use it when made/or to sell it to some one else. Such right has always existed, and would exist now if all, patent laws were repealed. It is a right which may be called a natural right, and which, so far as it 'may be regulated by law, belongs to ordinary, municipal legislation; and it is unaffected by anything in the constitution or patent laws of the United States. “The sole object and purpose of the laws which constitute the patent and copyright system is to give to the author and the inventor a monopoly of what he has written or discovered, that no one else shall make or use or sell his writings or his invention without his permission. * * * ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““This objection to the statute is one which we cannot consider in this case. As already stated, when a writ of habeas corpus is issued by the circuit court in behalf of one in custody of a state officer under judicial proceedings in state courts, under state laws, the only inquiry we can make is whether he is held in violation of the constitution or of a law of congress, or a treaty of the United States. The act in question may be in conflict with the constitution of the state without violating the constitution or any law or treaty of tho United States. It may bo in excess of the powers which the people of Missouri have conferred on their legislative body, and therefore void, without infringing any principle found in the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex parte Kinnebrew“An act to provide further remedial justice in the courts of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Neagle
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.