Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 298 F.1d 633 - E. Frederics, Inc. v. Eugene, Ltd.

E. Frederics, Inc. v. Eugene, Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis

298 F. 633 · 1924

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
October 1929
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Westinghouse v. Boyden Power Brake Co. · Topliff v. Topliff

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

  1. ““5. A device of the class described, comprising an envelop formed' of textile material having located therein, a hair treating substance in powdered form, said envelop being adapted to be shipped in flat form, and when moistened being adapted to be wrapped about a tress of hair so as to closely embrace the same. * * * “7. A device of the class described comprising a flat envelop formed of absorbent material having located therein a hair treating substance in powered form, and said first named envelop being inclosed within an envelop of flexible material.””
    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.