Thomas Ewing v. United States Ex Rel the Fowler Car Company’s Empirical Analysis
244 U.S. 1 · 1917
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1973 · most notably Chapman v. Wintroath (1920), In re Bass (1973)
15 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe · United States ex rel. Steinmetz v. Allen · 45 App. D.C. 185 - Ewing v. United States ex rel. Fowler Car 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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Sec. 1.201 Definition, when declared 19 "(a) An interference is a proceeding instituted for the purpose of determining the question of priority of invention between two or more parties claiming substantially the same patentable invention and may be instituted as soon as it is determined that common patentable subject matter is claimed in a plurality of applications or in an application and a patent. 20 "(b) . . . interferences will also be declared between pending applications for patent, or for reissue, and unexpired original or reissued patents, of different parties, when such applications and patents contain claims for substantially the same invention which are allowable in all of the applications involved, in accordance with the provisions of the regulations in this part.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is to be remembered that the law gives the Commissioner both initial and final power. It is he who is to cause the examination of an asserted invention or discovery and to judge of its utility and importance; it is he who is to judge . . . whether an application will interfere with a pending one; and it is he who, after an interference is declared and proceedings had, is the final arbiter of its only controversy, priority of invention.”
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.