← 374 U.S. 174 - United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co.

United States v. Singer Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1963

Citation profile

618

cited by 618 later decisions

cited 31 times by the Supreme Court

states following

February 2019

most recently cited

381 federal appellate · 32 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 618 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Pullman-Standard v. Swint (1982), Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. (1969)

381 federal appellate · 32 district · 24 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

Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 29 · 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 35 U.S.C. § 101 · 35 U.S.C. § 115 · 35 U.S.C. § 119 · 35 U.S.C. § 154

Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Supermarket Equipment Corp. · Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co · United States v. Yellow Cab 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 618 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
e.g. In Re JM · United States v. Clifford (In Re Clifford)
“beyond the limits of the patent monopoly”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Unitherm Food Systems, Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc. · F.T.C. v. Actavis, Inc.
“application of an improper standard to the facts, it may be corrected as a matter of law.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
e.g. Booking.com. B.V. v. U.S. Patent & Trademark Office · United States v. General Motors Corporation, a Corporation. General Motors Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Brock Adams

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.