Dunbar v. Myers’s Empirical Analysis
94 U.S. 187 · 1876
Citation profile
150 federal appellate · 39 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 296 later decisions (40 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Topliff v. Topliff (1892), Altoona Publix Theatres, Inc. v. American Tri-Ergon Corp. (1935)
150 federal appellate · 39 district · 5 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 Brown v. Piper · Vance v. Campbell
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 296 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]t is settled law, that, where the respondent in constructing his machine omits one of the ingredients of the complainant's combination, he does not infringe the complainant's patent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“improvement in the construction of prisóns,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“. “Grant that two.such plates are in certain cases better than one used alone;, still the question arises whether it involves any invention to add the second plate to a machine already constructed with one plate. Beyond doubt, every operator, who-had used a machine having one deflecting plate, knew full well whatthe function was that the deflecting plate was designed to accomplish, and the reasons for placing it at the side of the saw are obvious to the understanding of every one who ever witnessed the operation of a circular saw. Ordinary mechanics know how to use bolts, rivets, and screws, and it is obvious that any one knowing how to use such devices would know how to arrange a deflecting plate at one side of a circular saw which had such a device properly arranged on the other side — it being conceded that both deflecting plates are constructed and arranged precisely alike, except that one is placed on one side of the saw, and the other on the opposite side. Both are attached to the frame in the same manner; nor is itshown, either in the specification ordraw-ings, that there is anything peculiar in the means employed for arranging the deflecting plates at the sides of the saw, or in attaching the same to the frame. ””
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.