Northup v. Reish’s Empirical Analysis
200 F.2d 924 · 1953
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably Van Products Co. v. General Welding & Fabricating Co. (1965), Smith v. Dravo Corp. (1953)
13 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
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 Hoeltke v. C. M. Kemp Mfg. Co. · A. O. Smith Corp. v. Petroleum Iron Works Co. · Booth v. Stutz Motor Car Co. of America, Inc. · Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co. v. Kalten-Bach · Allen-Qualley Co. v. Shellmar Products 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The containers in which plaintiff’s oven liners were sold told the public everything that the plaintiff had told Reish about the oven liners. After the liners had been so marketed the plaintiff no longer had any secret about their composition, their style of embossment, their size, their shape, the method of their use, nor their disposal after they were too soiled for further use. “We do not mean to imply by our emphasis on the fact that plaintiff’s ‘secret’ was only an ‘analogous use’ for sheets of embossed aluminum foil, that’a ‘secret’ must be a patentable invention in order to be protected by equity against its unauthorized use by one to whom the secret has been disclosed in confidence. We are only trying to emphasize the fact that we are not dealing here with a secret process, machine or method of manufacturing, but only with a simple use which was necessarily fully disclosed to the public by the plaintiff when he marketed his oven liners.””
4 later decisions 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.