Blessing Et Al. v. Works.’s Empirical Analysis
34 F. 753 · 1888
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2005 · most notably Mumm v. Jacob E. Decker & Sons (1937), Thomson Spot Welder Co. v. Ford Motor Co. (1924)
8 federal appellate · 5 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 Brown v. Piper · Slawson v. Grand Street Railroad · Andrews v. Hovey · Shuter v. Davis
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““To decide, in advance of an opportunity to give evidence, that no evidence can possibly be given upon tlie question of invention which would permit the case to be submitted to the jury, seems to me to be ill advised, except in an unusual case.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[w]here the question whether the improvement required inventive skill for its production actually exists, it is one of fact for the jury”
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.