Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 F.2d 436 - In re Williams

In re Williams’s Empirical Analysis

36 F.2d 436 · 1929

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
January 1951
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently January 1951

1 federal appellate ·

1701929193019401950decided

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 Smith v. Nichols · In re Marshutz · Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Pittsburgh Transformer Co. · Linde Air Products Co. v. Morse Dry Dock & Repair Co. · Kil-Nock Co. v. Chicago Plating Co.

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.

  1. “: “There is no invention in changing the size and proportion of a device or machine so long as the construction and mode Of operation remain the same.””
    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.