Schumacher v. Cornell’s Empirical Analysis
96 U.S. 549 · 1877
Citation profile
10 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1995 · most notably Mercoid Corporation v. Mid-Continent Inv Co (1944), Hilton Davis Chemical Co. v. Warner-Jenkinson Co. (1995)
10 federal appellate ·
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 Seymour v. Osborne · Winans v. Adam Edward and Talbot Denmead · Gill v. Wells · Fuller v. Yentzer · David Prouty John Mears v. Draper Ruggles
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A combination is always an entirety. In such cases the patentee cannot abandon a part and claim the rest, nor can he be permitted to prove that a part is useless, and therefore immaterial. He must stand by his claim as he has made it. If more or less than the whole of his ingredients are used by another, such party is not liable as an infringer, because he has not used the invention or discovery patented. With the change of the elements, the identity of the product disappears.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“vital in the invention covered by his patent. The notch is the point of engagement between the bushing and the wrench when the latter, operating as a lever, gives the former its circular motion and thus forces it home.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cornell v. Weidner
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.