Straus v. Victor Talking Machine Co.’s Empirical Analysis
243 U.S. 490 · 1917
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 18 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 199 later decisions (45 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange (1926), Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co. (1942)
59 federal appellate · 18 district · 20 state decisions
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
reviewedVictor Talking Mach. Co. v. Strauss (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Fair v. Kohler Die & Specialty Co. · Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. · Wood v. Carpenter · Bement Sons v. National Harrow Company · Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company v. United States of America
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 199 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not to secure to the plaintiff any use of its machines”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That the plaintiff comes into court with a bill to enjoin the defendants from reselling machines secretly sold to them in large numbers by* the plaintiff’s agents indicates very clearly that, at least until the exigency out of which this case grew arose, the scheme was regarded by the plaintiff itself and by its agents simply as one for maintaining prices by holding a patent infringement suit in terrorem over the ignorant and the timid.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The abstract of the bill which we have given makes it plain: That whatever rights the plaintiff has against the defendants must be derived from the ‘license notice’ attached to each machine; for no contract rights existed between them.””
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.