Johnson v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis
60 F. 618 · 1894
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 1942
6 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 Washburn Moen Manuf'G Co v. Beat 'Em All Barbed-Wire Co · Loom Company v. Higgins · Hollister v. Benedict Burnham Manuf'G · Hailes v. Van Wormer · Pickering v. McCullough
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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Manufacture” seems the most apposite. The courts have given it a comprehensive definition. In Johnson v. Johnston, 60 F. 618 , 620 (C. C. W. D. Pa.), Acheson, J., said: "The term 'manufacture,’ as used in the patent law, has a very comprehensive sense, embracing whatever is made by the art or industry of man, not being a machine, a composition of matter, or a design.””
4 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.