Saranac Automatic Mach Corporation v. Wirebounds Patents Co’s Empirical Analysis
282 U.S. 704 · 1931
Citation profile
92 federal appellate · 31 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 205 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1975 · most notably Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation (1941), Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp. (1945)
92 federal appellate · 31 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
reviewedWirebounds Patents Co. v. Saranac Automatic Mach. Corp. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Washburn Moen Manuf'G Co v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co · Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Hyde · Hollister v. Benedict Burnham Manuf'G · Concrete Appliances Co. v. Gomery · Krementz v. S. Cottle 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 205 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“All else embodied in the (patent) . . ., we think, involve(s) not invention, but the application of mechanical skill to the solution of the problem of devising suitable mechanical means for the manufacture of foldable box blanks. . . . 38”
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.