Ladd v. W. & H. Walker, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
7 F.2d 72 · 1925
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 1962
4 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 Imperial Bottle Cap & Machine Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co. · Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Royal Typewriter Co. · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Seiberling · Johns-Pratt Co. v. E. H. Freeman Electric Co. · Russell Grader Mfg. Co. v. F. B. Zeig Mfg. 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is well-settled law that there is no infringement if one of the elements described by the patentee as essential is omitted without the substitution of an equivalent.””
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.