Blake v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis
94 U.S. 728 · 1876
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2017 · most notably Tilghman v. Proctor (1888), Pennwalt Corporation, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Durand-Wayland, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant (1987)
32 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““No license fee charged by the complainant is shown. The burden of proof rests upon him. Damages must be proved; they are not to be presumed. The complainant made a profit of forty- dollars an inch on the width of the jaws of the numerous machines he had sold. But inventions covered by other patents were embraced in those machines. It was not shown how much of the l>rofit was due to those other patents, nor how much of it was manufacturer’s profit. The complainant was therefore entitled only to nominal damages. This the court gave him. It was all the state of the evidence warranted. It would have been error to give more.””
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.