Rubber Tire Wheel Company v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company’s Empirical Analysis
232 U.S. 413 · 1914
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 19 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2024 · most notably Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. (1932), Aralac, Inc. v. Hat Corp. (1948)
21 federal appellate · 19 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedRubber Tire Wheel Co. v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company · Kessler v. Eldred · Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rubber Tire Wheel Co. · Consolidated Rubber Tire Co. v. Firestone Tire & Rubber 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ . . . and it continues only so long as the commodity to which the right applies retains its separate identity. If that commodity is combined with other things in the process of the manufacture of a new commodity, the trade right in the original part as an article of commerce is necessarily gone.” 232 U.S. at 418-419 , 34 S.Ct. at 405 :”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Kessler, being defeated in the circuit court, appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Answering questions certified by that court, this court held that the decree in the suit of Eldred v. Kessler had the effect of entitling Kessler to continue the business of manufacturing and selling throughout the United States the same lighter he had theretofore been manufacturing and selling, without molestation by Eldred through the patent which he held; and that the decree also had the effect of making a suit by Eldred against any customer of Kessler for the alleged infringement of the patent by use or sale of Kessler’s lighters a wrongful interference with Kessler’s business, with respect to which he was without adequate remedy at law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“could demand protection for its trade rights in the commodities it produced. But it had no transferable immunity in manufacture. The decree gave it no privilege to demand that others should be allowed to make and sell the patented structure in order that it might have a market for its rubber. 232 U.S. at 419 , 34 S.Ct. at 405 .”
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.