Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 282 U.S. 175 - Powers-Kenedy Contracting Corporation v. Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co

Powers-Kenedy Contracting Corporation v. Concrete Mixing & Conveying Co’s Empirical Analysis

282 U.S. 175 · 1930

Citation profile

376
cited by 376 later decisions
30
cited 30 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 2019
most recently cited

175 federal appellate · 81 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 376 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc (1966), Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation (1941)

175 federal appellate · 81 district · 4 state decisions

1710193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedConcrete Mixing & Conveying Co. v. Powers-Kennedy Contracting Corp. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Railway Company v. Sayles · Hailes v. Van Wormer · Grinnell Washing Mach Co v. E E Johnson Co · Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery

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

  1. ““For these reasons we find that the patent (for a concrete conveyer using compressed air) is invalid. It consists of a combination of elements all of which were old in the art. Its application to the transportation of concrete did not involve invention. Neither the combination of old elements or devices accomplishing no more than an aggregate of old results (citing cases) nor the use of an old apparatus or appliance for a new purpose * * is invention.””
    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.