Langfield v. Solvit-All Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
49 F.2d 480 · 1931
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently December 1951
1 federal appellate ·
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 California Packing Corp. v. Tillman & Bendel, Inc. · B. F. Goodrich Co. v. Hockmeyer · Cheek-Neal Coffee Co. v. Hal Dick Mfg. Co. · Sun-Maid Raisin Growers of California v. American Grocer Co. · Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. Hartogensis
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true that the goods of the parties do not possess, entirely, the same essential characteristics. Nevertheless the purposes for which they are used are of the same general nature, and are closely associated and related. They are both used for cleaning purposes by the general public, are sold in the same stores, and, although a purchaser would not confuse the two products, confusion as to their origin would probably result should the parties use their trade-marks concurrently. “We are of opinion, therefore, that the goods are • of the same general class and possess the same descriptive properties within the principles heretofore announced by this court.””
2 later decisions 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.