Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
275 U.S. 331 · 1928
Citation profile
170 federal appellate · 40 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 534 later decisions (66 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)
170 federal appellate · 40 district · 13 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.
Relationships
Relies on Waterman v. Mackenzie · Elizabeth v. Pavement Co. · Tilghman v. Proctor · Miller v. Robertson · Gayler v. Wilder
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 534 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he purpose of the amendment was to relieve the contractor entirely from liability of every kind for the infringement of patents in manufacturing anything for the Government”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“adjudication is effective for both”); Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U.S. 331 , 340, 48 S.Ct. 194 , 196, 72 L.Ed. 303 (1928) (“It does not make a reason given for a conclusion in a case obiter dictum, because it is only one of two reasons for the same conclusion.”); United States v. Title Ins. & Trust Co., 265 U.S. 472 , 486, 44 S.Ct. 621 , 623, 68 L.Ed. 1110 (1924) (”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Whenever an invention described in and covered by a patent of the United States is used or manufactured by or for the United States without license of the owner thereof or lawful right to use or manufacture the same, the owner’s remedy shall be by action against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims for the recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use and manufacture.”
4 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.