Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
326 U.S. 249 · 1945
Citation profile
193 federal appellate · 49 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 559 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2025 · most notably Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation (1971), Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (1969)
193 federal appellate · 49 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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
reviewedAutomatic Paper Machinery Co. v. Marcalus Mfg. Co. (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Board of Trade of City of Chicago v. United States · Brooklyn Sav Bank v. O'Neil Dize · Kellogg Co. v. National Biscuit Co. · Addyston Pipe Steel Company v. United States
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 559 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For no more than private contract can estoppel be the means of successfully avoiding the requirements of legislation enacted for the protection of a public interest.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“would deprive ... the consuming public of the advantage to be derived”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ny attempted reservation or continuation in the patentee or those claiming under him of the patent monopoly, after the patent expires, whatever the legal device employed, runs counter to the policy and purpose of the patent laws ... By force of the patent laws not only is the invention of a patent dedicated to the public upon its expiration, but the public thereby becomes entitled to share in the good will which the patentee has built up in the patented article or product through the enjoyment of his patent monopoly.”
4 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.