Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 7 F.1d 475 - Wood v. Dolby

Wood v. Dolby’s Empirical Analysis

7 F. 475 · 1881

Citation profile

8
cited by 8 later decisions
February 1915
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently February 1915

1 federal appellate ·

301881189019001910decided

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.

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

  1. ““Perhaps, as has been argued for the defendant, the statute was intended to protect such designs only as would be original and distinctive of themselves, and not those which would be mere improvements upon others; but if so, the word ‘improved,’ in this patent, is not understood as representing that this design is a mere improvement upon another, especially as no other is mentioned, but is considered to mean that this design is of itself new and distinctive, and improved as compared with others, and, in connection with the new, to represent that it was original with the orator.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.