Briggs v. Central Ice Co.’s Empirical Analysis
60 F. 87 · 1894
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently February 1932
4 federal appellate · 2 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 Pennsylvania Co v. Locomotive Engine Safety Truck Co · Aron v. Manhattan Ry Co · Blake v. City and County of San Francisco · Steiner Fire Extinguisher Co. v. City of Adrian · Briggs v. Central Ice Co.
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““(3) The combination with the cutter head, and the racks directly attached thereto, of the guides for both cutter head and the racks, arranged perpendicularly to the plane of the elevator, the pinions mounted on said guides iind engaging in said racks, and the levers or arms for operating said pinions, a cutler consistí¡tg of a number of points entering the ice in such a manner as not only to cut but to groove it at one operation, and an ice elevator adapted, to positively force the ascending cakes of ice into contact with the culler and groover, all constructed substantially as described, so that the depth of the out may be directly and positively regulated by means of tho levers, and the ice at the same tithe properly grooved for storage.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Briggs v. Duell · Briggs v. Duell““(3) The combination with the cutter-head and the racks directly attached thereto, of the guides for both cutter-head and racks, arranged perpendicularly to the plane of the elevator, the pinions mounted on said guides and engaging in said racks, and the levers or arms for operating said pinions, a cutter consisting of a number of points entering the ice in such a manner as not only to cut but to groove it at one operation, and an ice elevator adapted to positively force the ascending cakes of ice into contact with the cutter and groover, ail constructed substantially as described, so that the depth of the cut may be directly and positively regulated by means of the levers, and the ice at the same time properly grooved for storage.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Briggs v. Duell““It is not invention to use an old combination of devices in a new location to perform the same operations when no change or modifications are required to adapt it to the new use, or when only such are required as can be made by the exercise of ordinary mechanical skill. The case of Aron v. Railway Co., 132 U. S. 84 , 10 Sup. Ct. 24 , is an apposite illustration of the rule.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lettelier v. Mann
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.