Blanchard v. Putnam’s Empirical Analysis
75 U.S. 420 · 1869
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1958 · most notably Westinghouse Electric Mfg Co v. Formica Insulation Co (1924), Hurlbut v. Schillinger (1889)
16 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“’ “What the jury have to determine is, does the machine of the .defendant infringe the machine of the plaintiff? And, if it does not, then the defendant is entitled to a verdict. But, if it does infringe the plaintiff’s machine, then the plaintiff is entitled to his remedy; and it is no answer to the cause of action to plead or prove that the defendant is the licensee of the owner of another patent, and that his machine is constructed in accordance with that patent.””
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.