Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 200 F.1d 151 - Luten v. Sharp

Luten v. Sharp’s Empirical Analysis

200 F. 151 · 1912

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
June 1917
most recently cited

2 district ·

Relationships

Relies on McCoy v. Nelson · American Bell Tel. Co. v. Southern Tel. Co. · McMillin v. St. Louis & Miss. Valley Transp. 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““And your orator further shows to your honors, on information and belief, that the defendants herein, well knowing the premises and the rights and privileges secured unto your orator, and continuing to injure your orator and deprive him of the profits, benefits, and advantages which might and would otherwise accrue to him from the said letters patent Nos. 830,483, 852,970, 853,183, 853,203, 858,204, 979,776, 989,272, 999,663, and 933,771, and from the use of the inventions set forth therein, since the issuance thereof and the acquirement of the title thereto by your orator, within six years last past, and before the commencement of this suit, have, without license and authority, against the will of your orator,- and in violation of your orator’s rights, and in infringements of the aforesaid letters patent Nos. 830,483, 852,970, 853,183, 853,203, 853,204, 979,776, 989,272, 999,663, and 933,771, at Cowley county, in the district of Kansas, knowingly and willfully constructed and sold, or caused to be constructed, used, and sold, a bridge or structure comprising one 40-t'oot and one 20-foot span over Grouse creek, at what is known as Darst ford, in section 13, township 33, range 6, in said Cowley county, by the practice of and in accordance with and containing the improvements and inventions described and claimed in said letters patent Nos. 830,483, 852,970, 853,183, 853,-203, 853,204, 979,776, 989,272, 999,663, and 933,771, or material or essential parts thereof, all as recited”
    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.