Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 238 F.2d 867 - The Apex Electrical Manufacturing Company, Individually and as Trustee v. Altorfer Bros. Company, the Apex Electrical Manufacturing Company and J. G. De Remer Research Corp. v. Altorfer Bros. Company

The Apex Electrical Manufacturing Company, Individually and as Trustee v. Altorfer Bros. Company, the Apex Electrical Manufacturing Company and J. G. De Remer Research Corp. v. Altorfer Bros. Company’s Empirical Analysis

238 F.2d 867 · 1956

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
July 1981
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently July 1981 · most notably Binks Manufacturing Co. v. Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. (1960), Kolene Corporation, and Deutsche Gold-Und-Silber Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler v. Motor City Metal Treating, Inc. (1971)

28 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2101956196019701980decided

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. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 35 U.S.C. § 285

Relies on Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. · Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust Co. · Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. United States · United States v. Line Material Co. · Maytag Co. v. Hurley Machine 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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “This rule was adopted as a `sound one' in Pennsylvania Crusher Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Co., 3 Cir., 193 F.2d 445 , 451. In Laufenberg we pointed out, * * * that an award of attorney's fees is not the usual or customary procedure in a patent case, and that such an award does not follow as a matter of course from the decision of the suit as in the case of ordinary costs.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “`[T]he trial court should make a specific finding to show the basis upon which the award of attorney's fees is made.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.