Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 F.1d 305 - Caverly v. Deere

Caverly v. Deere’s Empirical Analysis

66 F. 305 · 1895

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
February 1938
most recently cited

14 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently February 1938

14 federal appellate ·

10018951900191019201930decided

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 Caverly v. Deere

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

  1. ““It is, of course, true that certain geometrical propositions are applicable to knives in such a machine standing at an angle of 45 degrees which would not be applicable if the angle were different, and, conversely, if the angle were different, the geometrical propositions incident thereto would not be applicable to knives inclined at the first named angle; but patentability does not follow in the one instance more than in the other.””
    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.