Stephens v. Cady’s Empirical Analysis
55 U.S. 528 · 1852
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 10 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2015 · most notably Bobbs-Merrill Company v. Isidor Straus R H (1908), American Tobacco Company v. Emil Werckmeister (1907)
11 federal appellate · 10 district · 24 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.
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But the incorporeal right secured by the statute to the author to multiply copies of the map by the use of the plate, being' intangible and resting altogether in grant, is not the subject of seizure or sale by means of this process, certainly not at common law. No doubt the property may be reached by a creditors’ bill, and be applied to the payment of the debts of the author, the same as stock of the debtor is reached and applied, the court compelling the transfer and sale of the stock for the benefit of the creditors; but in case of such remedy we suppose it would be necessary for the court to compel a transfer to the purchaser in conformity with the requirements of the copyright act in order to invest him with a complete title to the property. * * * An assignment, therefore, that would vest the assignee with the property of the copyright, according to the act of Congress, must be in writing and signed in the presence of two witnesses, and it may, I think, well be doubted Whether a transfer, even by a sale under a decree of a court of chancery, would i)ass the title so as to protect the purchaser unless by a conveyance in conformity with this requirement.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ager v. Murray · Ball v. Coker“Even the transfer of the manuscripts of a book will not, at common law, carry with it a right to print and publish the work, without the express consent of the author, as the property of the manuscript, and the right to multiply the copies, are two separate and distinct interests.”
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.