Hildreth v. Mastoras’s Empirical Analysis
253 F. 68 · 1918
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Relies on Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. · Miller v. Eagle Manuf'G Co · Reckendorfer v. Faber · Dolbear v. American Bell Telephone Co. · Morley Sewing Machine Co. v. Lancaster
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(1) A candy-pulling machine comprising a plurality of oppositely disposed candy hooks or supports, a candy-puller and means for producing a specified relative in-and-out motion of these parts for the purpose set forth.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mastoras v. Hildreth
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.