United States v. Esnault-Pelterie’s Empirical Analysis
303 U.S. 26 · 1938
Citation profile
92 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 138 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1994 · most notably Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v. United States (1943), American Infra-Red Radiant Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Hupp Corporation, a Virginia Corporation v. Lambert Industries, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation, and Agard L. Lambert, Lambert Industries, Inc., a Minnesota Corporation, Industrial Ceramics, Inc.,a Minnesota Corporation, and Agard L. Lambert v. American Infra-Red Radiant Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Huppcorporation, a Virginia Corporation (1966)
92 federal appellate · 12 district · 4 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 Phillips v. Commissioner · Botany Worsted Mills v. United States · Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters · Phillips v. Commissioner · United States v. Wells
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 138 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to resolve questions of the application of descriptions to subject-matter”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a patent case in the Court of Claims under the Act of 1910 the questions of validity and infringement are questions of fact. We have said that, for the purposes of our review in such a case, the findings of the Court of Claims “are to be treated like the verdict of a jury, and we are not at liberty to refer to the evidence, any more than to the opinion, for the purpose of eking out, controlling, or modifying their scope.” Brothers v. United States, 250 U. S. 88, 93 ; Stilz v. United States, 269 U. S. 144, 147, 148 ; United States v. Esnault-Pelterie, supra. The requirement that the Court of Claims should find the ultimate facts which are controlling places upon that court the duty of resolving conflicting inferences and to draw from the evidence the necessary conclusions of fact. United States v. Adams, 6 Wall. 101, 112 . Even though the finding determines a mixed question of law and fact, the finding is conclusive unless the court is able “to so separate the question as to see clearly what and where the mistake of law is.” Ross v. Day, 232 U. S. 110, 117 ; United States v. Omaha Indians, 253 U. S. 275, 281 ; Stilz v. United States, supra; United States v. Swift & Co., 270 U. S. 124, 138 .”
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.