Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 240 U.S. 251 - Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company v. Wolf Brothers & Company

Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company v. Wolf Brothers & Company’s Empirical Analysis

240 U.S. 251 · 1916

Citation profile

623
cited by 623 later decisions
62
cited 62 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

250 federal appellate · 68 district · 99 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 623 later decisions (62 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Brown v. Allen (1953), Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. (1988)

250 federal appellate · 68 district · 99 state decisions — followed in 18 states

910191619201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedWolf Bros. & Co. v. Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Messenger v. Anderson · The Conqueror · McLean v. Fleming · Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. · Tilghman v. Proctor

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 623 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “for the purpose of administering complete relief,”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““We do not regard the word ‘The American Girl,’ adopted and employed by complainant in connection with shoes of its manufacture, as being a geographical or descriptive term- It does not signify that the shoes are manufactured in America, or intended to be sold or used in America, nor does it indicate the quality or characteristics of the shoes. _ Indeed, it does not, in its primary signification, indicate shoes at ail. It is a fanciful designation, arbitrarily selected by complainant’s predecessors to designate shoes of their manufacture. Wo are convinced that it was subject to appropriation for that purpose, and it abundantly appears to have been appropriated and used by comida inant and those under whom it claims.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'before the court of appeals upon the second appeal,'”
    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.