Pedersen v. Dundon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 7 district ·

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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Neither the joinder of two elements of a patented combination into one integral part, accomplishing the purpose of both, nor the separation of oné integral part into two, which together accomplish substantially what was done by the single element, will avoid a charge of infringement. Bundy Mfg. Co. v. Detroit Time Register Co., 94 Fed. 524 , 36 C. C. A. 375 ; Standard Caster & Wheel Co. v. Caster Socket Co., 113 Fed. 162 , 51 C. C. A. 109 ; H. F. Brammer Mfg. Co. v. Witte Hardware Co., 159 Fed. 726 , 728, 86 C. C. A. 202 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Parker v. Automatic Mach. Co. · Smith Cannery Machines Co. v. Seattle-Astoria Iron Works

2. ““3. In a hermetically closing door, pressing bars to force the door upon its seat, bearing at four or more points thereon, forming also hinges for the door, and in combination therewith the radius links 18 pivoted in the same axial line as the pressing bars and holding the door in adjustment thereon, substantially as specified.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Dundon v. Pedersen