Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co.’s Empirical Analysis
229 F.2d 37 · 1956
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 24 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently July 1998 · most notably Amf Incorporated v. Sleekcraft Boats E (1979), Securities & Exchange Commission v. Commonwealth Chemical Securities, Inc. (1978)
69 federal appellate · 24 district · 3 state decisions
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1071 (§ 21 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 35 U.S.C. § 145
Relies on Morgan v. Daniels · Yale Electric Corp. v. Robertson · Abbott v. Coe · Washington v. Summerfield · Standard Oil Development Co. v. Marzall
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Patent Office finding must be accepted if it is `consistent with the evidence,' the Patent Office being an expert body pre-eminently qualified to determine questions of this kind.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * it must be laid down as a rule that, where the question decided in the patent office, is one between contesting parties as to priority of invention, the decision there must be accepted as controlling upon that question of fact in any subsequent suit between the same parties, unless the contrary is established by testimony which in character and amount carries thorough conviction.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Of course, if the decision of the Patent Office is not warranted on the evidence before it, or if the new evidence reaches the necessary standard, the District Court may rule as the totality of the evidence may require.””
3 later decisions 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.