Stevens v. Gladding’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

34 federal appellate · 15 district · 22 state decisions

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

1. ““There is nothing in this act of 1819 which extends the equity powers of the courts to the adjudication of forfeitures; it being manifestly intended That the jurisdiction therein conferred should he the usual and known jurisdiction exercised by courts of equity for the protection of analogous rights. The prayer of this bill for the penalties must therefore be rejected. The remaining question is, whether there ought to be a decree for an account of the profits. The complainant has not prayed for such an account, nor have the defendants stated one in their answer; but the bill does pray for general relief. The right to an account of profits is incident to the right in an injunction in copy and patent right casos. Colburn v. Simms, 2 Hare, 554; 3 Dan. Ch. Pr. 3797. And this court has held, in Watts et al. v. Waddle et al. 6 Pet. 389 . that where the bill states a case proper for an account, one may be ordered under the prayer for general relief. See also 2 Pet. 612 ; 14 Pet. 156 ; 16 Pet. 195 ; 9 How. 405 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Franklin Brass Foundry Co. v. Shapiro & Aronson, Inc.

2. ““TMs act does not enlarge or alter the powers of the court over the.subject-matter of the bill or the cause of action. It only extends its jurisdiction to parlies not before falling within it. Before this act it had been held that a citizen of one state could not obtain an injunction in the Circuit Court for a violation of a patent rigid, against a citizen of the same state, as no act of Congress authorized such suit. * This act removed that objection. and gave the jurisdiction, although the parties were citizens of the same state. But in the exorcise of the jurisdiction in all cases of granting injunctions to prevent the violation of patent rig'hts, the court is to proceed according to the course and principles of courts of equity in such cases. So that the questions presented in the present case are precisely where they would have been without tills act.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Franklin Brass Foundry Co. v. Shapiro & Aronson, Inc.

3. ““There would certainly be great difficulty in assenting to the proposition that patent and copyrights held under the laws of the United States are subject to seizure and sale on execution. Not to repeat what is said on this subject in Stephens v. Cady, 14 How. 531 , 14 L. Ed. 528 , it may be added that these incorporeal rights do not exist in any particular state or district. They are coextensive with the United States. There is nothing in any act of Congress, or in the nature of the rights themselves, which give them locality anywhere, so as to subject them to the process of courts having jurisdiction limited by the lines of states and districts.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ball v. Coker