Bate Refigerating Co. v. Gillett’s Empirical Analysis
31 F. 809 · 1887
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1909
2 federal appellate ·
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 Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. Metropolitan Burglar Alarm Co. · Bate Refrigerating Co. v. Gillett · Paillard v. Bruno
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““I may say at once that I attach no importance to the last-mentioned act (1883). The American patent received Us operative force and effect on the day it was issued, and no subsequent legislation, in Canada or elsewhere, coidd change it, whatever may he the effect of such legislation where made. The force and effect of the American patent could only he affected by the Canadian patent as the latter stood when granted, and not as afterwards modified by legislation.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“deceiving the attorney general, the advocates, and the court, employing and paying counsel on both sides, as well, seemingly, against themselves as on their apparent behalf,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“improvement in processes. for preserving meats during transportation and storage.”
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.