Howard Dustless Duster Co. v. Carleton’s Empirical Analysis
219 F. 913 · 1915
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 1986
1 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 Gorham Company v. White · Saxlehner v. Eisner & Mendelson Co. · Heaton-Peninsular Button-Fastener Co. v. Eureka Specialty Co. · Taendsticksfabriks Akticbolagat Vulcan v. Myers · N. K. Fairbank Co. v. R. W. Bell Manuf'g 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““if the Tate Manufacturing Company has made and sold its dust cloths to Carleton, which the latter sold, so that they may or have been actually used, by Carleton so as to mislead the public, it became a joint tort-feasor with Carleton and is guilty of contributory infringement of plaintiff’s rights, * * * the means of deceiving purchasers giving a right of action.””
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.