McCaskey Register Co. v. Divens’s Empirical Analysis
194 F. 967 · 1912
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
May 1915
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on McCaskey Register Co. v. Divens
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““12. Account-recording appliances, including a bill-bolder frame, bill-bolders mounted on tbe frame, and having pairs of apertures therein, bill-clamps mounted oppositely on both side.s of tbe bill-bolders and. having members extending through the apertures to opposite sides thereof, the bill-clamps, on both sides of the bill-holders, extending from the apertures in the same direction. “13. Account-recording appliances, including pivoted bill-holders, bill-clamps mounted on the bill-holders, tab-holders attached'to the bill-clamps near the free ends thereof, and index-tabs mounted on the tab-holders.” “15. Account-recording appliances, including a bill-holder frame, bill-holders mounted on the frame and having pairs of apertures therein, bill-clamps mounted' oppositely on both sides of the bill-holders and having members extending through the apertures to opposite sides thereof, and rubbing-strips, on the bill-holders in pairs on opposing holders, and co-operating one with another.” “22. In account-recording appliances, the combination, with a plurality of pivoted bill-holders, of a plurality of bill-clamps mounted on the holders, tab-holders attached to the bill-clamps, and index-tabs attached to the tab-holders.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““From what has been said, it is obvious' that the patent is a very narrow one, and that, if it is sustained, it must be narrowly construed, and practically confined to its exact disclosures. No broad construction is permissible, nor can the doctrine of equivalents be applied, without encountering the prior art and destroying the patent. Thus construed, the defendant has not infringed.””
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.