37 F. Supp. 224 - Cheney Co. v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently May 1964
6 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 Lincoln Engineering Co of Illinois v. Stewart-Warner Corporation · I. T. S. Rubber Co. v. Essex Rubber Co. · Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. · Shepard v. Carrigan · Webster Electric Co. v. Splitdorf Electrical 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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As to defendants’ counterclaim in which defendants are seeking an injunction and accounting against plaintiff because of alleged malicious threatening of persons with whom defendants did, or attempted to do business for the purpose of discouraging the purchase’ of defendants’ material, we cannot find that defendants have made out a case. As we view the law, notices given, or circulars distributed, to warn against infringement, are legal and proper. It is only when they are given and distributed in bad faith and solely for the purpose of destroying the business of another that they are enjoined. See A. B. Farquhar Co. v. National Har row Co., 3 Cir., 102 F. 714 , 49 L.R. A. 755. “We cannot find that the plaintiff acted in bad faith. It owned patents which it believed to be valid, and notified defendants and their customers of alleged infringement. We see nothing wrong in this. The defendants’ counterclaim will be dismissed.””
1 later decision 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.