In re McCarthy Portable Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis
205 F. 986 · 1913
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 1978
5 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Keppel v. Tiffin Savings Bank · Hutchinson v. Otis · Ludowici Roofing Tile Co. v. Pennsylvania Inst. for Instruction of the Blind · In re Mercur · In re J. M. Mertens & 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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To refuse recognition of a meritorious claim, though filed within the prescribed "year, because not presented by the then owner, is not justified by the language of such clause, and to do so would be to do violence to the spirit and purpose of the enactment. In the present case the claim proved disclosed its true nature and consideration. It having been filed within the year, it gave all the needed information to permit the carrying out of the primary purpose of the year’s limitation.””
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.