Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 297 U.S. 387 - Wine Ry Appliance Co v. Enterprise Ry Equipment Co

Wine Ry Appliance Co v. Enterprise Ry Equipment Co’s Empirical Analysis

297 U.S. 387 · 1936

Citation profile

146
cited by 146 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
February 2020
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 28 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 146 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2020 · most notably Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc. (1989), Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1964)

31 federal appellate · 28 district · 1 state decisions

4701936194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Sessions v. Romadka · Dunlap v. Schofield · Uriah Boyden v. Edmund Burke

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

  1. “to the public that the same is patented.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “£ 287. Limitation on damages; marking and notice Patentees, and persons making or selling any patented article for or under them, may give notice to the public that the same is patented, either by fixing thereon the word "patent" or the abbreviation "pat.”, together with the number of the patent, or when, from the character of the article, this can not be done, by fixing to it, or to the package wherein one or more of them is contained, a label containing a like notice. In the event of failure so to mark, no damages shall be recovered by the patentee in any action for infringement, except on proof that the infringer was notified of the infringement and continued to infringe thereafter, in which event damages may be recovered only for infringement occurring after such notice. Filing of an action for infringement shall constitute such notice.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The idea of a tangible article proclaiming its own character runs through this and related provisions. Two kinds of notice are specified — one to the public by a visible mark, another by actual advice to the infringer. The second becomes necessary only when the first has not been given; and the first can only be given in connection with some fabricated article. Penalty for failure implies opportunity to perform.”
    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.