Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 34 F.1d 134 - Enterprise Manuf'g Co. v. Sargent

Enterprise Manuf'g Co. v. Sargent’s Empirical Analysis

34 F. 134 · 1888

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
May 1897
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Enterprise Manuf'g Co. v. Sargent

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

  1. ““The main object of the patentee was to construct a machine which should get rid of the supposed necessity of preliminary cutting or chopping knives, and rely for its cutting character entirely upon the plate and knife at the end of the casing. Thus the patentee said in his specification: ‘A perforated plate and a knife have be.en used in a cutting machine, but in combination with preliminary cutting or chopping knives, moving and stationary, acting independently of the plate, for mincing meat before it reaches the said plate in a minced condition, the plate and knife being in this case for the purpose of preventing the escape of large lumps which may have escaped the action of the preliminary chopping knives. In my invention, reliance for cutting up the substance is placed entirely on the plate and knife and a device for imparting direct pressure to a crude, uncut substance against the plate without any action on the substance during its passage to the plate, excepting that for effecting the desired pressure, the aim being to cut up the substance to uniform, or nearly uniform, sizes,—a result which cannot be attained when .there are-intervening choppers to cut the substance up to different sizes, large and small.’ But it does not follow that the patentee meant, or that his patent is to be fairly construed as meaning, that the meat was to come to the plate in a condition in which no rubbing, or no abrasion, or no disintegration had taken place. He simply meant that, in contra”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““(1) The combination, in a machine for cutting up plastic or yielding substances, of the following instrumentalities, namely: First, a casing for containing the substances to be cut up; second, a perforated plate at or near the end of the casing; third, a device for forcing the crude mass forward in the casing and against the said plate, without otherwise disturbing the integrity of the said mass; and, fourth, a knife operating against the inner face of the plate, and serving as the sole means, in connection with the said plate, of cutting up the mass by severing therefrom the portions which enter the perforations, all substantially as set forth.” “(4) The combination of the casing, E, made larger at its outer than at its inner end, with a perforated plate, a knife, and a feed-screw. “(5) The combination of a easing, E, made larger at its outer than at its inner end, with a perforated plate, a knife, and a feed-screw, the thread of which conforms with the said easing, as set forth.””
    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.