General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals Co.’s Empirical Analysis
287 U.S. 430 · 1932
Citation profile
246 federal appellate · 36 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 495 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Carson v. American Brands, Inc. (1981), Shanferoke Coal Supply Corporation v. Westchester Service Corporation (1935)
246 federal appellate · 36 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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
reviewedMarvel Rare Metals Co. v. General Electric Co. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. · In re Hohorst · American Mills Co. v. American Surety Co. · In re Keasbey & Mattison 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 495 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the very question that, among others, would have been presented to the court upon formal application for an interlocutory injunction.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““One who sues in a federal court of equity to enjoin the infringement of his patent, thereby submits himself to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to all the issues of the case, including those pertaining to a counterclaim praying that he be restrained from infringing a patent of the defendant.” Id. at 435, 53 S.Ct. at 204 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““relates to venue. It confers upon defendants in patent cases a privilege in respect of the places in which suits may be maintained against them. And that privilege may be waived. * * * The section does not, as to counterclaims, purport to modify the rule, prevailing prior to its enactment [which generally authorizes the pleading of counterclaims and is now Rule 13, Fed.R.Civ.P.]. The setting up of a counterclaim against one already in a court of his own choosing is very different, in respect to venue, from hailing him into that court. [Section 1400(b)], taken according to the meaning ordinarily given to the words used, applies only to the latter, and we find no warrant for a construction that would make it include the former.” 287 U.S. at 435 , 53 S.Ct. at 204 .”
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.