Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 304 U.S. 159 - Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co.

Crown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co.’s Empirical Analysis

304 U.S. 159 · 1938

Citation profile

169
cited by 169 later decisions
26
cited 26 times by the Supreme Court
January 2023
most recently cited

62 federal appellate · 21 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 169 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Mazer v. Stein (1954), United States v. United States Smelting Refining & Mining Co. (1950)

62 federal appellate · 21 district ·

3501938194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedCrown Cork & Seal Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann & Co. (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 35 U.S.C. § 31 · 35 U.S.C. § 32

Relies on Atlantio Works v. Brady Brady · Topliff v. Topliff · Mahn v. Harwood · Miller v. Brass Co. · Butterworth v. United States ex rel. Hoe

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

  1. “not directly applicable to the precise question of laches upon which the case turned.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is clear that, in the absence of intervening adverse rights, the decision in Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Co., supra [ 264 U.S. 463 , 44 S.Ct. 342 , 68 L.Ed. 792 (1924) ] does not mean that an excuse, must be shown for a lapse of more than two years in presenting the divisional application”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[w]e have no hesitation in saying that the delay was unreasonable, and, under the circumstances shown by the record, constitutes laches, by which the petitioner lost whatever rights it might otherwise have been entitled to.”
    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.