Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 277 U.S. 245 - Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co.

Holland Furniture Co. v. Perkins Glue Co.’s Empirical Analysis

277 U.S. 245 · 1928

Citation profile

338
cited by 338 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
May 2023
most recently cited

160 federal appellate · 42 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 338 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. (1938), United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co. (1942)

160 federal appellate · 42 district ·

131019281930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedPerkins Glue Co. v. Holland Furniture Co. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. · O'Reilly v. Morse · Leeds Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company · Cochrane v. Deener · Knapp v. Morss

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 338 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “exclusively in terms of its use or function.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““It was necessary that the Perkins’ patent, so far as it is a patent of a composition of matter, should contain some description of the ingredients entering into the composition which would both define the invention [citing authorities] and carry it beyond the previous development of the art.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “product patents or patents of compositions of matter are distinct from patents of the process by which the product may be produced * * *.”
    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.