Pirkl v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
42 F. 410 · 1890
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently March 1927
1 federal appellate · 2 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. · Waite v. Dowley · State v. Lull
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“•‘They knew that the design had beeh applied to the guards which they so sold, for they applied it; and they knew it was so applied without license, for they had no license, and must have known that. That they did not know of the patent is urged against liability on account of the sale, but the statute does not include knowledge of the patent among the things ncessary to create this liability. It only requires that the design shall have been applied without license and a sale, ‘knowing that it has been so applied.’ The defendants, unwittingly perhaps, appear to have brought themselves clearly within this branch of the statute.””
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.