Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 332 U.S. 319 - United States v. National Lead Co.

United States v. National Lead Co.’s Empirical Analysis

332 U.S. 319 · 1947

Citation profile

283
cited by 283 later decisions
81
cited 81 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
February 2005
most recently cited

52 federal appellate · 46 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 283 later decisions (81 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2005 · most notably United States v. United States Gypsum Co. (1948), Brown Shoe Co. v. United States (1962)

52 federal appellate · 46 district · 8 state decisions

9401947195019601970198019902000decided

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 Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Porter v. Warner Holding Co. · United States v. Crescent Amusement Co. · Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States · Sheldon v. Metro-Goldwyn Pictures Corp.

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

  1. “all royalties automatically to a total of zero ... appears, on its face, to be inequitable without special proof to support such a conclusion.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““That a patent is properly, protected against appropriation both by individuals and by government has long been settled. In recognition of this quality of a patent the courts, in enjoining violations of the Sherman Act arising from the use of patent licenses, agreements, and leases have abstained from action which amounted to a forfeiture of the patents.” Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, supra, 323 U.S. at page 415 , 65 S.Ct. at page 387 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “enabling any of the parties ... to apply to the court at any time for such further orders and directions as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction or carrying out of this judgment”
    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.