Mowry v. Whitney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

107 federal appellate · 42 district · 6 state decisions

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 305 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Interest is not generally allowable upon unliquidated damages. We will not say that in no possible case can interest be allowed. It is enough that the case in hand does not justify such an allowance.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Leman v. Krentler-Arnold Hinge Last Co. · Metallic Rubber Tire Co. v. Hartford Rubber Works Co.

2. ““The question to be determined in this case is: What advantage did the defendant derive from using the complainant’s invention over what he had in using other processes then open to the public and adequate to enable him to obtain an equally beneficial result? The fruits of that advantage are his profits. They are all the benefits lie derived from the existence of the Whitney invention. It is found that there were other processes by which the inherent strain caused by unequal cooling could be, and was prevented, counteracting which strain was the sole object of the complainant’s invention, and a ear wheel could be prepared for similar service, valuable in the market, and salable at a price not less than was obtained for those which the defendant manufactured. The inquiry then is: What was the advantage in cost, in skill required, in convenience of operation, or marketability, in bringing car wheels by Whitney’s process, from the condition in which they are when taken hot from the molds to a perfected state, over bringing them, to tile same state by those other processes, and thus rendering them equally fit for the same service? That advantage is the measure of profits.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Keystone Manufacturing Co. v. Adams · Cambria Iron Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.

3. ““The specification, then, is to be addressed to those skilled in the art, and is to be comprehensible by them.. It may be sufficient, though the unskilled may. not be able to gather from it how to use the invention. And it is evident that the definiteness of the specification must vary with the nature of its subject. Addressed as it is to those skilled in the art, it may leave something to their skill in applying the invention, but it should not mislead them,””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Minerals Separation, Ltd. v. Miami Copper Co. · Henry J. Kaiser Company v. McLouth Steel Corp.