Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 87 U.S. 353 - Hailes v. Van Wormer

Hailes v. Van Wormer’s Empirical Analysis

87 U.S. 353 · 1873

Citation profile

438
cited by 438 later decisions
43
cited 43 times by the Supreme Court
August 1989
most recently cited

161 federal appellate · 83 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 438 later decisions (43 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1989 · most notably Cuno Engineering Corporation v. Automatic Devices Corporation (1941), Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. (1935)

161 federal appellate · 83 district ·

900187318801890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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

  1. ““Merely bringing old devices into juxtaposition, and there allowing each to work out its own effect without the production of something novel, is not invention.” Hailes v. Van Wormer, 20 Wall. 353 , 368 ( 22 L. Ed. 241 ).”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “' “The first claim in the reissued patent, dated February 3, 1883, is unquestionably too broad to be sustained, unless limited to the means described in the specification. So, it was doubtless intended by the patentees to be limited, for the claim speaks of the combination claimed as ‘substantially as described’; that is, described in the specifications.””
    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.