Ball v. Coker’s Empirical Analysis
210 F. 278 · 1913
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
January 1984
most recently cited
1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company · Tilghman v. Proctor · Cochrane v. Deener · Hailes v. Van Wormer · Pickering v. McCullough
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.
““The distinction between a ‘combination’ and an ‘aggregation’ lies in the presence or absence of mutuality of action. * * * To be patentable the-combination of all elements or devices must form either a new machine of a distinct character and function, or produce a result due to the joint and co operating action of all the elements. * * * Otherwise It is only a mechanical juxtaposition, and not a vital union.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.