General Radio Co. v. Superior Electric Co.’s Empirical Analysis
293 F.2d 949 · 1961
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Knapp-Monarch Co. v. Casco Products Corp. (1965), 400 F. Supp. 1325 - Stanley Works v. Globemaster, Inc. (1975)
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert · Hurn v. Oursler · Fourco Glass Company v. Transmirra Products Corporation · Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co. · W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The facts as stated by the Court in the Tyler Co. case are more meager than those appearing in the case at bar in that from the opinion in that case it does not appear that the defendant’s name was displayed on the door of its New York sales office or on or in the building where it was located or that its name was listed in the New York telephone di- ' rectory, or that it kept sales literature in its New York office or that its salesman investigated complaints. But all these activities are only incidents of solicitation. In that case as in this, the local salesman consummated no sales himself; his only duty with respect to sales was ‘ “to solicit orders [and] forward them when received to the home office for execution.” ’ It is evident from the opinion in the Tyler Co. case that this is the fact the Court considered determinative.” 293 F.2d 949, at 951 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The causes of action for patent infringement and unfair competition, although separate, are so allied because of the similarity of the facts involved in each that when joined jurisdiction over the latter is conferred by jurisdiction over the former under the doctrine of Hurn v. Oursler, 1933, 289 U.S. 238 , 53 S. Ct. 586 , 77 L. Ed. 1148 now embodied in Title 28 U.S.C. § 1338 (b).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.