Hogg v. Emerson’s Empirical Analysis
47 U.S. 437 · 1848
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2005 · most notably MARKMAN Et Al. v. WESTVIEW INSTRUMENTS, INC., Et Al. (1996), Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc. (1995)
15 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Abraham Pennock v. Adam Dialogue · James Wood v. William a Underhill · Evans v. Eaton · Cross v. Huntly
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The next objection is, that this description in the letters thus considered .covers more than one patent and is therefore void. “There seems to have been no good reason at first, unless it be a fiscal une on the part of the government when issuing patents, why more than one in favor' of the same inventor ' should not be embraced' in one instrument, like more than one tract of land in one deed or patent for land. Phill. Pat. 217. “Each could be set out in separate articles or paragraphs, as different counts for different matters in libels in admiralty or declarations at common law, and . the specifications could be made distinct for each and equally, clear. “But to obtain more revenue, the public.officers have gen erally declined, to issue letters for inore than one patent described in them. Renouard, 293; Phill. Pat. 218. The courts have been disposed to acquiesce.in the practice, as conducive to clearness and certainty. And if Tetters issue otherwise inadvertently to hold them, as a general rule, null. But it is a well established exception that patents may be united, if two or more, included in one set of letters, relate to a like subject, or are in their nature or operation connected together. Phil. Pat. 218, 219; Barret v. Hall, 1 Mason, 447; Moody v. Fiske, 2 Mason, 112; Wyeth et al. v. Stone et al., 1 Story, 273 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is as much to be considered with the [letters patent] in construing them, as any paper referred to in a deed or other contract”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“need not describe particularly, and disclaim all the old parts. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Avery v. Hilder
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.