Payne v. Hurley’s Empirical Analysis
71 F.2d 208 · 1934
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently May 1979 · most notably Perma Research & Development v. Singer Co. (1976), Frederick F. Blicke v. Gino R. Treves (1957)
5 federal appellate ·
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 Corona Cord Tire Co. v. Dovan Chemical Corp. · Mason v. Hepburn · Fageol v. Lyon · Jobski v. Johnson · Crabbs v. Wardell
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The testimony of the witnesses shows, and we think it apparent from the facts presented by the record, that no manufacturer of automobiles or aeroplanes would use spark plugs which had been subjected only to bench or shop tests, and which had never been used under actual working conditions. Many cases might be cited in which the courts have expressed their views that inventions must be reduced to practice by subjection to actual working conditions. A few only are noted: “This court, in James v. Stimson, 49 F.2d 493 , 18 C.C.P.A., Patents, 1255, held that a highway danger signal, consisting of a device with reflecting surfaces adapted to catch and reflect the rays of light from automobile headlights, must be tested upon a highway, under actual working conditions, to be reduced to practice. “In Barclay v. Schuler, 41 App.D.C. 250 , a wire garment stay formed of a single wire bent in alternately progressive loops, adapted to be used in the manufacture of a corset, was held to necessarily require a test under actual working conditions. "In Jobski v. Johnson, [supra], a device, part of a means used in retaining an automobile tire on its rim, was held not to be sufficiently tested by shop tests, but must be tested by use upon a car in motion. “In Fageol v. Lyon, [supra], the court held, speaking through Smith, Judge, of this court, that certain hook bolts used to secure a bumper to an automobile frame were not sufficiently tested by pulling and jerking the bumper, but must ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Kruger v. Resnick
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.