Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co.’s Empirical Analysis
289 U.S. 689 · 1933
Citation profile
138 federal appellate · 33 district · 102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 543 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (1983), Oklahoma Press Pub Co v. Walling US News Printing Co (1946)
138 federal appellate · 33 district · 102 state decisions — followed in 16 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
reviewedJenkins Petroleum Process Co. v. Sinclair Refining Co. (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Ithaca Trust Co. v. United States · Fisk · Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pacific Co. · Dowagiac Manufacturing Company v. Minnesota Moline Plow Company No 6 Dowagiac Manufacturing Company
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 543 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'The principle of judicial parsimony' (L. Hand, J., in Pressed Steel Car Co. v. Union Pacific Railroad Co ., * * * [ 240 F. 135 , 137 (S.D.N.Y. 1917)]) , if nothing more, condemns a useless remedy.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(T)he law will make the best appraisal that it can, summoning to its service whatever aids it can command.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We do not think that a court, valuing in judicial proceedings an invention described in an application for a patent, is obliged to shut its eyes to the result of the application, nor to the commercial utility of the invention as shown by the use of it in the art or industry to which it relates. * * * “Such evidence is not for the purpose of showing increase in value or new uses, * * * but to show the inherent character and place of the invention in question. * * * Of course commercial success of an invention may be due less to its own merit than to the ability with which it was exploited. The weight to be given such ‘evidence rests in the discretion of the jury or trier of the fact. We cannot say that no evidence of that sort ought to be received in the aetion at law to which this bill of discovery relates, and that therefore discovery of it ought not to be ordered. “The profits if any which the Sinclair Company made by using the Isom invention have no relevancy on the question of damages, and no discovery should be ordered in respect to them. * * * “Nor is the precise extent to which the defendant made use of the Isom invention material on the plaintiff’s case in chief. * * * The plaintiff is entitled to show the general facts about the Isom invention, not specific instances of profitable use by this person , or that. The probative value of such evidence is outweighed by the extent and complexity of the collateral inquiries which it involves. “If, however, the defendant sho”
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.