Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 93 F.2d 797 - Goldman v. Polan

Goldman v. Polan’s Empirical Analysis

93 F.2d 797 · 1938

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
October 1968
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently October 1968

13 federal appellate · 7 district ·

1301938194019501960decided

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 Julia Hotchkiss Executrix of John Hotchkiss Deceased John Davenport and John Quincy v. Miles Greenwood · O'Reilly v. Morse · Reckendorfer v. Faber · Permutit Co. v. Graver Corp. · Hailes v. Van Wormer

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

  1. ““It is perfectly clear that all that plaintiff did was to use a material, superior for the purpose which he had in mind, in place of the fabric customarily used for covering umbrellas. Or, to look at the matter from another angle, he merely applied the oiled silk developed by another person to a new use ■but one analogous to the uses theretofore made of it. If the use of the oiled silk with the umbrella frame be conceived of as a combination, the answer to the claim of invention is that no new result was attained which was the joint product of the combination, but each of the old elements worked out the old results in the old way. The oiled silk offered the same resistance to water on the umbrella that it would have offered as a cape; and the umbrella frame supported it in the same way that it would have supported any other covering. If plaintiff could obtain a patent on the use of the fabric as a covering for umbrellas, we perceive no reason why he could not have had patents covering its use for shower bath curtains, or capes; and any new fabric, on this principle, whether patentable or not, would be subject to as many different patents as uses could be found for it.””
    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.