Oldroyd v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.2d 1004 · 1928
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 1947
4 federal appellate · 2 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 Podlesak v. McInnerney · 31 App. D.C. 612 - Lindmark v. Hodgkinson · Seeberger v. Dodge · Leonard v. Everett · Flora v. Powrie
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where patentable novelty has been denied by all of the expert tribunals of the Patent Office, it is incumbent upon one appealing therefrom to make out a clear case of error in order to obtain a reversal. * * * That rule is particularly applicable to this case, which, for its satisfactory determination, requires technical knowledge of an abstruse art that can only be acquired through thorough training.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“* * * members supporting said tool on said support for movement toward and from the axial line of said support, means on said rotatable support for actuating said supporting members for moving said tool toward and from the axial line of the rotary support * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Oldroyd v. Morgan
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.