Smith v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
55 F. 481 · 1893
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently April 1934
3 federal appellate · 1 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 Gorham Company v. White · Untermeyer v. Freund · Wood v. Dolby · Pirkl v. Smith · Simpson v. Davis
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Such designs generally, if not uniformly, contain nothing new except the appearance presented to the eye by arrangement of previously existing material, such as lines, scrolls, flowers, -leaves, birds, and the like. The combination, where several separate objects are employed, need not be, and cannot be, such as this term signifies when applied to machinery. * * * The object sought in a design is a new effect upon the eye alone, a new appearance, and the several parts need not have any other connection than is necessary to accomplish this result.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““To speak of the invention as a combination, or to treat it as such is to overlook its peculiarities.””
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.