Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 72 F.1d 1016 - Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Kelsey Electric Railway Specialty Co.

Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Kelsey Electric Railway Specialty Co.’s Empirical Analysis

72 F. 1016 · 1896

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
June 1980
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1980

3 federal appellate · 3 district ·

601896190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. · Wilson v. Simpson · Edwin Chaffee v. The Boston Belting Company · Davis Electrical Works v. Edison Electric Light Co. · Thomson-Houston Electric Co. v. Winchester Ave. Ry. 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ ‘Contributory infringement,’ says Judge Townsend in Thomson-Houston Co. v. Kelsey Co. [C. C.] 72 Fed. 1016 , ‘bus been well defined as the intentional aiding of one person by another in the unlawful making or selling or using of the patented invention.’ To the same effect are Wallace v. Holmes, 29 Fed. Cas. 79; Risdon v. Trent [C. C.] 92 Fed. 375 ; Thomson-Houston Co. v. Ohio Brass Works, 80 Fed. 712 [ 26 C. C. A. 107 ]; American Graphophone Co. v. Hawthorne [C. C.] 92 Fed. 516 .””
    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.