Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 96 F.1d 850 - Cambria Iron Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.

Cambria Iron Co. v. Carnegie Steel Co.’s Empirical Analysis

96 F. 850 · 1899

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
June 1915
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Union Metallio Cartridge Co v. United States Cartridge Co · Carnegie Steel Co. v. Cambria Iron 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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““The process therein claimed applies to ‘the art of mixing molten metal.’ By the use of the more general term ‘molten metal,’ it seems to us that the inventor intended to and did broaden his claim so as to include in it the treatment of all molten metals, whether drawn from the furnace or cupola. The natural meaning of the words ‘molten metal’ .would require that construction, and it appears from the record that it is in accordance not only with the definition of the works furnished by scientific lexicographers and those skilled in the art, but with the understanding of the inventor himself.””
    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.