Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 51 U.S. 329 - James Stimpson v. The Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company

James Stimpson v. The Baltimore and Susquehanna Railroad Company’s Empirical Analysis

51 U.S. 329 · 1850

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
5
cited 5 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
August 2009
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2009

6 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

501850186018701880189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 David Prouty John Mears v. Draper Ruggles · The President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States v. Smith · Pawling v. The United States · Young and al v. Black

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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “This combination, composed of all the parts mentioned in the specification, and arranged with reference to each other, and to other parts of the, plough in the manner therein described, is stated to be the improvement and is the thing patented. The use of any two of these parts only, or of two combined with a third which is substantially different, in form or in the manner of its arrangement and connection with the others, is, therefore, not the thing patented. It is not the same combination if it substantially differs from it in any of its parts. The jogging of the standard into the beam, and its extension backward from the bolt, are both treated by the plaintiffs as essential parts of their combination for the purpose of brace and draft. Consequently, the use of either alone, by the defendants, wrould not be the same improvement nor infringe the patent of the plaintiffs.”
    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.