Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 F.1d 369 - Williams v. Star Sand Co.

Williams v. Star Sand Co.’s Empirical Analysis

35 F. 369 · 1888

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
May 1900
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Littlefield v. Perry · Hartell v. Tilghman · Albright v. Teas · Dale Tile Manufacturing Co. v. Hyatt · Aspinwall, Manuf'g Co. v. Gill

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

  1. ““Every patent, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing. * * * An assignment, grant, or conveyance shall be void as against any subsequent purchaser or mortgagee for a valuable consideration without notice, unless it is recorded in the patent-office within three months from the date thereof. ””
    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.