Jacoway v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
228 F. 630 · 1915
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently August 1974
3 federal appellate · 3 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 White v. Ewing · Tetlow v. Tappan · T. B. Woods Sons Co. v. Valley Iron Works · Hobbs Mfg. Co. v. Gooding · Ross v. H. S. Geer 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But it is an established rule in equity that, having taken cognizance of a case upon any ground of which jurisdiction is given, the court will proceed to dispose of the whole controversy between the parties, even though there may be certain phases of it as to which, by themselves, it would not; and that rule is applicable here. The unfair competition of which complaint is made is not a distinct and independent act, leading to an inquiry into different and unrelated transactions, constituting a separate cause of action. It is rather an aggravation of the infringement, by which the defendants, according to the-bill, have not only copied the principle of the patented device, but the very form of it, taking advantage of the trade which has been worked up for it, and palming off their own upon the public as that of the complainants. It is thus merely an added feature, going along with the rest to show the extent and aggravated character of the infringement which the bill seeks to enjoin.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The trade-mark found to be valid, the District Court had jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject-matter for the purpose of enjoining, not only the infringement of that trade-mark but also all wrongful acts done in connection with the infringement which augment and aggravate the wrong.””
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.