Theller v. Hershey’s Empirical Analysis
89 F. 575 · 1898
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently July 2014
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 7 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.
Relationships
Relies on Lovejoy v. Murray · Robbins v. Chicago City · David Bradley Manuf'g Co. v. Eagle Manuf'g Co. · Miller v. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. · American Bell Telephone Co. v. National Improved Telephone 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Parties include not only those whose names appear upon the record, but all others who participate in the litigation by employing counsel, or by contributing towards the expenses thereof, or who in any manner have such control thereof as to be entitled to direct the course of proceedings therein. Thus it is said in 3 Rob. Pat. § 1176: ‘Where several defendants, by agree ment, contest one of the actions in their joint behalf, all become thereby parties to the suit, and are equally concluded by the judgment.’ The Jaw is well settled that parties and'privies include all who are directly interested in the subject-matter, and who had the right to make defense, control the proceedings, examine and cross-examine witnesses, and appeal from the judgment. United States & Foreign Salamander Felting Co. v. Asbestos Felting Co. (C. C.) 4 Fed. 816 ; Miller v. Tobacco Co. (C. C.) 7 Fed. 91 , 93; Claflin v. Fletcher (C. C.) Id. 851; American Bell Tel. Co. v. National Improved Tel. Co. (C. C.) 27 Fed. 663 , 665; Eagle Mfg. Co. v. David Bradley Mfg. Co. (C. C.) 50 Fed. 193 , 195; Id., 6 C. C. A. 661 , 57 Fed. 980 , 990, and authorities there cited; Lovejoy v. Murray, 3 Wall. 1 , 18, 18 L. Ed. 129 ; Robbins v. Chicago City, 4 Wall. 657 , 672, 18 L. Ed. 427 ; Walk. Pat. (2d Ed.) § 468.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““A pleading setting up a former judgment between plaintiff and a third party as binding on defendant need not allege in terms that defendant had such control of the former action as to be bound by the judgment, but is sufficient if the facts pleaded warrant such conclusion by the court. One who, being interested in the subject-matter of an action for infringement of a patent, contributes towards the defense of such action, and agrees to pay a share of the expenses and costs, becomes privy thereto, and is bound by the judgment.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.