Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 322 U.S. 471 - Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.

Universal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

322 U.S. 471 · 1944

Citation profile

333
cited by 333 later decisions
20
cited 20 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

107 federal appellate · 45 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 333 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2019 · most notably Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. (1974), Aro Manufacturing Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co. (1961)

107 federal appellate · 45 district · 6 state decisions

72019441950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedUniversal Oil Products Co. v. Globe Oil & Refining Co. (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Sanitary Refrigerator Co. v. Winters · General Electric Co. v. Wabash Appliance Corp. · Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Ray-O-Vac Co. · Smith v. Snow · White v. Dunbar

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

  1. “As a reward for inventions and to encourage their disclosure, the United States offers a seventeen-year monopoly to an inventor who refrains from keeping his invention a trade secret. But the quid pro quo is disclosure of a process or device in sufficient detail to enable one skilled in the art to practice the invention once the period of the monopoly has expired; and the same precision of disclosure is likewise essential to warn the industry concerned of the precise scope of the monopoly asserted.”
    6 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.