National Folding-Box & Paper Co. v. Dayton Paper Novelty Co.’s Empirical Analysis
95 F. 991 · 1899
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1959
8 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.
Relationships
Relies on Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States · Callaghan v. Myers · Duplex Printing-Press Co. v. Campbell Printing-Press & Manuf'g Co. · Mosher v. Joyce · State v. Port Royal & A. Ry. 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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Interest will be allowed on the amount found due from January 1, 1893. The unlawful action of the defendant, in its willingness to run the chances of the validity of complainant’s patent, seems to have been deliberate. I see no reason, therefore, for not including this usual element of damages in the recovery.””
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.