Triplett v. Lowell’s Empirical Analysis
297 U.S. 638 · 1936
Citation profile
239 federal appellate · 53 district · 25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 518 later decisions (28 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Allen v. McCurry (1980), Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore (1979)
239 federal appellate · 53 district · 25 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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
reviewedLowell v. Triplett (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Washburn Moen Manuf'G Co v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co · Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company · Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters · United States v. Mayer · Mast Foos Company v. Stover 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 518 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Neither reason nor authority supports the contention that an adjudication adverse to any or all the claims of a patent precludes another suit upon the same claims against a different defendant. While the earlier decision may by comity be given great weight in a later litigation and thus persuade the court to render a like decree, it is not res adjudicata and may not be pleaded as a defense.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We conclude that neither the rules of the common law applicable to successive litigations concerning the same subject matter, nor the disclaimer statute, precludes relitigation of the validity of a patent claim previously held invalid in a suit against a different defendant.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The court whose jurisdiction is invoked by such a suit [i. e., a second suit in a circuit other than the circuit which has already passed on the matter] must determine for itself validity and ownership of the claims asserted, notwithstanding a prior adjudication of invalidity of some of them, unless those issues have become res adjudicata, by reason of the fact that both suits are between the same parties or their privies.” (Emphasis added)”
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.