Overland Motor Co. v. Packard Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
274 U.S. 417 · 1927
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 9 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1967 · most notably Saco-Lowell Shops v. Reynolds (1944), In re Herr (1967)
34 federal appellate · 9 district ·
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 United States v. American Bell Telephone Co. · Chapman v. Wintroath · Woodbridge v. United States · Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Aluminum Stopper 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““While the rules that govern the finality and conclusiveness of adjudications at the common law do not apply, in the strict sense, to administrative or quasi-judicial action in the Executive Departments of Government, yet in administrative action, as well as in judicial proceeding, it is both expedient and necessary that there should be an end of controversy. * * * ****** “In what we have said we do not desire it to be understood that the Patent Office may not, if it thinks proper so to do, entertain and adjudicate a second application for a patent after the first application has been rejected. What we decide is, that it is not incumbent upon the office as a duty to entertain such applications * * *.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Hitchings · In re Herr“While the rules that govern the finality and conclusiveness of adjudications at the common law do not apply, in the strict sense, to administrative or quasi-judicial action in the Executive Departments of government, yet in administrative action, as well as in judicial proceeding, it is both expedient and necessary that there should be an end of controversy. * * * Especially is this principle-applicable to the proceedings of the Patent Office, which are so nearly akin to judicial proceedings as to be most appropriately designated as quasi-judicial.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Herr“It is quite true that, after such [unappealed final] rejection, the Commissioner of Patents might have refused to consider his divisional application, as he made it without suggestion or consent by the Patent Office. In a qualified and limited sense a claim rejected as this was constitutes res judicata in favor of the Government and against the applicant. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In re Herr
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.