Wahl v. Carrier Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
358 F.2d 1 · 1966
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently August 2016
16 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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 Armour & Co. v. Wilson & Co. · Binks Manufacturing Co. v. Ransburg Electro-Coating Corp. · Aerosol Research Co. v. Scovill Manufacturing Co. · Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. Technical Tape Corp. · Briggs v. M & J Diesel Locomotive Filter 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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We agree with plaintiffs that like many patent infringement actions this one turns on ultimate technical facts the determination of which requires resolution of conflicts in the testimony of experts, and that the court’s recognition of the difficulties inherent in arriving at findings in this technical area did not remove those findings, when made, from the scope of Rule 52 (a). “Therefore, insofar as the detailed findings of the court, upon which it predicates its conclusions of validity and infringement, concern factual issues such as the use made of prior art, the nature of the improvement made over prior art, and the characteristics and operational functions of the patented structure and the accused apparatus, Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (28 U.S.C.A.) applies. The court heard the testimony of expert witnesses in connection with these matters and witnessed the demonstration of the physical exhibits, including the operation of the accused apparatus. The scope of our review of such findings is therefore limited to a determination of whether or not they are ‘clearly erroneous’. Armour & Co. v. Wilson & Co., 7 Cir., 274 F.2d 143 , 151-157; Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Technical Tape Corp., 7 Cir., 309 F.2d 55 , 57; Aerosol Research Company v. Scovill Manufacturing Co., 7 Cir., 334 F.2d 751 , 753. If they find support in the evidence we are bound thereby and there remains but the question of whether the court applied the correct legal criteria in rea”
2 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.