Beidler v. Caps’s Empirical Analysis
36 F.2d 122 · 1929
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1999 · most notably Dickinson v. Zurko (1999), 269 F. Supp. 818 - Monsanto Company v. Kamp (1967)
3 federal appellate · 3 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 Greenawalt v. Dwight · 24 App. D.C. 462 - Paul v. Hess · Courson v. O'Connor · Leonard v. Everett · 33 App. D.C. 430 - Lemp v. Randall
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Assuming without deciding that the doing of urgent and necessary work upon other machines in the Reetigraph plant, ‘upon which its life depended,’ would excuse non-activity on the machine here involved between May 25, 1923, and January 1, 1924, if Smith, the mechanic, was the only person who could build the machines required for the operation of the factory, or who could be trusted with the building of the machine here involved, we would observe that there is no evidence tending to show that other mechanics could not have been employed to build the machines necessary for the Reetigraph factory, or that no other mechanic could be •found who could be trusted with knowledge of appellant’s invention and build it. It appears from the evidence that Smith was a skilled mechanic who, prior to- his employment by Beidler, had been employed as an expert mechanic by a check writer concern, by a pump factory, and by an elevator works in the same capacity. It does not appear that he had ever had any experience in building photographic machines of any character. It does not appear, therefore, that Smith had any qualifications for the building of the machines referred to that any expert- mechanic in general machine construction would not possess. “In order to warrant a finding of diligence under the facts in this ease, it should appear at least that appellant made efforts to secure other mechanics to do the necessary work required by the factory, leaving Smith free to carry out appellant’s ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Greene v. Beidler
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.