Olympic Fastening Systems, Inc. v. Textron, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
504 F.2d 609 · 1974
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably United States v. Choate (1978), Schlegel Manufacturing Co. v. USM Corp. (1975)
15 federal appellate · 1 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 Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · United States v. Adams · United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co · United States v. Pink · Schriber-Schroth Co. v. Cleveland Trust 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Southeastern insists that these claims, although adequately presented in the bill of complaint, cannot be availed of in this court, because they were overruled by the District Court and the American did not take a cross-appeal. The objection is unsound. It is true that a party who does not appeal from a final decree of the trial court cannot be heard in opposition thereto when the case is brought here by the appeal of the adverse party. In other words, the appellee may not attack the decree with a view either to enlarging his own rights thereunder or of lessening the rights of his adversary, whether what he seeks is to correct an error or to supplement the decree with respect to a matter not dealt with below. But it is likewise settled that the appellee may, without taking a cross-appeal, urge in support of a decree any matter appearing in the record, although his argument may involve an attack upon the reasoning of the lower court or an insistence upon matter overlooked or ignored by it."”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if two devices do the same work in substantially the same way, and accomplish substantially the same result, they are the same, Even though they differ in name, form, or shape.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“consider(s) the file wrapper history as an aid to interpretation of the Claim, and specifically whether there has been an attempt to revive abandoned claims.”
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.