Wilgus v. Germain’s Empirical Analysis
72 F. 773 · 1896
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently November 1910
1 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 Miller v. Eagle Manuf'G Co · Union Paper-Bag Machine Company v. Murphy · Smith v. Nichols · Hawkins v. Glenn · Birdsell v. Shaliol
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““There are several assignments of error which challenge the rulings of the court in giving and refusing instructions. It will be unnecessary to refer to them in detail. They are oil based on the general assertion and contention of the plaintiff in error that there is no similarity in name, shape, size, or construct ton between the inventions of Gauthier and Wilgus. It is urged that the Gauthier patent is intended for spraying trees and plants; that it differs in shape from that of Wilgus; and that it delivers the fluid in the form of mist, whereas the Wilgus sprinkler delivers water for sprinkling purposes only, and in the form of drops; that in the one xiatent the opening for the discharge of the finid is smaller than the opening for its inlet int© the nozzle, while in the other the reverse is true. Other points of difference are pointed out. All these questions were properly submitted to the jury. There was evidence to the effect that the principle of both sprinklers was the same, and that there operation was the same. It dot's not follow as a rule of law that, because the Gauthier sxirinkler was used in sprinklin'»' trees, and delivered the fluid in the form of mist, the Wilgus sprinkler, which was used to sprinkle lawns, and delivered the water in drops, was not anticipated, in the x>rior invention,”—citing Tucker v. Spalding, 13 Wall. 453 ; Smith v. Nichols. 21 Wall. 112 ; Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U. S. 120 , 125; Machine Co. v. Keith, 101 U. S. 479 .”
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.