Endrezze v. Dorr Co.’s Empirical Analysis
97 F.2d 46 · 1938
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently December 1977 · most notably Union Asbestos & Rubber Company, by Change of Name Unarco Industries, Inc. v. Evans Products Company (1964), 261 F. Supp. 648 - Ruddies v. Auburn Spark Plug Co. (1966)
14 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 109
Relies on W. S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co. · Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. v. Stanley Electric Mfg. Co. · Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Joe Higdon · Frink Co. v. Erikson · International Harvester Co. of America v. Kentucky
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But when the commission of an act of infringement is essential to jurisdiction, the completed act must be proved. There must be proof either of a manufacture, a use, or a sale within the district, contracts to manufacture, threats to use, negotiations for a sale, will not be sufficient, for the reason that the statute requires proof of the completed act.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a regular and established place of business”
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.