Standard Elevator Co. v. Crane Elevator Co.’s Empirical Analysis
56 F. 718 · 1893
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently July 1951 · most notably Electric Manuf'g Co. v. Edison Electric Light Co. (1894), Sinko Tool & Mfg. Co. v. Casco Products Corp. (1937)
18 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.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The object of the provisional remedy is preventive, largely, and it will not be granted if it is more likely to produce than to prevent irreparable mischief. If the controversy between the parties be substantial, and not, as to the alleged infringer, colorable, merely, courts of equity are not disposed to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties otherwise than according to the approved usages of chancery, when the defendant’s rights might, by the issuance of a writ of injunction, be put in great jeopardy, and the complainant can be compensated in damages. Without passing any opinion upon the complainant’s right or the defendant’s infringement, it suffices to say that, upon the proofs in the record, we cannot declare that the right or the infringement is so clear from doubt as to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. The evidence as to the construction of claims and infringement, upon which the court below was called to pass, was largely and necessarily ex parte. There was no opportunity of probing the witnesses. Scientific expert evidence is not wholly reliable when not subjected to the searchlight of intelligent cross-examination. It would, we think, be most unsafe to determine this controversy without full and orderly proof. It would be most unwise to imperil, and presumably wholly ruin, the large capital and interests involved in the business of the appellants, by arresting the enterprise in advance of a final decree, when the damages which the appellee may s”
3 later decisions 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.