Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 303 U.S. 545 - Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation

Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation’s Empirical Analysis

303 U.S. 545 · 1938

Citation profile

1,242
cited by 1,242 later decisions
22
cited 22 times by the Supreme Court
August 2011
most recently cited

591 federal appellate · 164 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,242 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2011 · most notably Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc (1966), Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. (1950)

591 federal appellate · 164 district ·

3860193819401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedLincoln Engineering Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corp. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Deering v. Winona Harvester Works · Leeds Catlin Company v. Victor Talking Machine Company · Pickering v. McCullough · Bassick Mfg Co v. R M Hollingshead Co Rogers

Cited together with Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation · Bassick Mfg Co v. R M Hollingshead Co Rogers · Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp.

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 1,242 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The mere aggregation of a number of old parts or elements which, in the aggregation, perform or produce no new or different function or operation than that theretofore performed or produced by them, is not patentable invention.”
    53 later decisions 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.