Jenkins Petroleum Process Co. v. Sinclair Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
32 F.2d 252 · 1929
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1987
4 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Jenkins Petroleum Process Co. v. Sinclair Refining Co.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is further definitely understood and agreed between us that any improvements, whether of a mechanical nature or in the process, which may be developed as the result of the work of your engineers and experts in familiarizing themselves with the Jenkins apparatus and process, shall accrue to the Jenkins Petroleum Process Company, and that you shall so far as you are able to do, cause your employees carrying on such experimental work to execute applications for patents for the United States and any other countries to protect any such, improvements, but at the expense of Jenkins Petroleum Process Company and to assign said applications, together with the improvements they are intended to protect, to the Jenkins Petroleum Process-Company.””
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.