Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical Co.’s Empirical Analysis
264 U.S. 463 · 1924
Citation profile
119 federal appellate · 52 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 336 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Gunning v. Cooley (1930), Helvering v. Tex-Penn Oil Co. (1937)
119 federal appellate · 52 district · 2 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 Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Topliff v. Topliff · Mahn v. Harwood · Railway Company v. Sayles · Miller v. Brass Co. · Hobbs v. Beach
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 336 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * the long delay of Kane and his assignee in coming to the point tends strongly to confirm the view that the final determination to do so was an exigent afterthought, rather than a logical development of the original application. We have no hesitation in saying that the delay was unreasonable, and, under the circumstances shown by the record, constitutes laches, by which the petitioner lost whatever rights it might otherwise have been entitled to.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In suits to enforce reissue patents, the settled rule of this Court is that a delay for two years or more wifi ‘invalidate the reissue, unless the delay is accounted for and excused by special circumstances, which show it to have been not unreasonable.’ . .;. “Our conclusion, therefore, is that in cases involving laches, equitable estoppel or intervening private or public rights, the two-year limit prima facie applies to divisional applications and can only be avoided by proof of special circumstances justifying a'longer delay . In other words, we follow , in that respect the analogy furnished by the patent reissue cases.” (Italics supplied.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“During all of this time the subject-matter [of the claims] was disclosed and in general use; and Kane and his assignee, so far as claims 7 and 8 are concerned, simply stood by and awaited developments.”
2 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.