American Well Works Company v. Layne & Bowler Company E’s Empirical Analysis
241 U.S. 257 · 1916
Citation profile
507 federal appellate · 142 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,388 later decisions (49 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California (1983), Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. (1957)
507 federal appellate · 142 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 14 states
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 Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co. · Moran v. Dunphy
Cited together with Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust 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 1,388 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A suit arises under the law that creates the cause of action.”
76 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Long before the enactment of the Federal Declaratory Judgments Act the Supreme Court had established two correlative rules relating to jurisdiction in patent matters. The first is that a case is within the exclusive federal jurisdiction when it seeks to enforce a patent against an infringer, even though the complaint may show, in anticipation of a defense, the existence of an agreement between the parties relating to the patent. The second is that if the suit is to enforce or to revoke a patent licensing or other similar agreement, it “is not a suit under the patent laws of the United States, and cannot be maintained in a federal court as such.” (citations omitted) 3”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is enough to allege and prove the conduct and effect, leaving the defendant to justify if he can.”
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.