United States v. Esnault-Pelterie’s Empirical Analysis
299 U.S. 201 · 1936
Citation profile
87 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 157 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1994 · most notably United States v. Causby (1946), Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. United States (1943)
87 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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 Gunning v. Cooley · Botany Worsted Mills v. United States · United States v. Wells · United States v. Jefferson Electric Manufacturing Co. · Coupe v. Royer
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 157 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““XLVIII. Claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Esnault-Pelterie patent in suit are valid. “XLIX. The three alleged infringing airplanes of the defendant all possess the single vertical lever movable in every direction for controlling the lateral or longitudinal equilibrium of the airplane, connected to equivalent controlling surfaces having the same functional effects as those disclosed in the patent. “Claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the Esnault-Pelterie patent in suit are infringed by defendant.””
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.