Johnson v. Brooklyn & C. R.’s Empirical Analysis
37 F. 147 · 1888
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently January 1934
1 federal appellate · 1 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 Root v. Railway Co. · Birdsell v. Shaliol · Wilson v. Simpson · Consolidated Safety-Valve Co v. Crosby Steam Gage Value · The Suffolk Company v. Hayden
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““An injunction against the infringement of a patent for an invention consisting of a combination of known appliances is not violated by using the combination after the expiration of the patent.””
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.