Andrews v. Thum’s Empirical Analysis
67 F. 911 · 1895
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 1932
8 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 Knapp v. Morss · Aron v. Manhattan Ry Co · Andrews v. Thum · Thum v. Andrews
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Such a rearrangement required, no invention, but would suggest itself to anyone skilled in the art. It is not sufficient that the patentee may have produced a better and more merchantable article, but there must have been something novel in the means which were employed in its production.””
2 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.