Orrison v. C. Hoffberger Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
2 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 35 U.S.C. § 31
Relies on Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co. · Diamond Rubber Company of New York v. Consolidated Rubber Tire Company · Loom Company v. Higgins · Carnegie Steel Company v. Cambria Iron Company · Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is true that in Columbus, beginning in 1934, this ice machine may not have been doing as good a job as Orrison did, but it did substantially the same thing in substantially the same way, and made substantially the same product. “When so-called common ice, with a core, is put through a crusher, all of the particles that come out will not be clear. Orrison recommends that the core be first taken out, so that the entire cake of ice before crushing is transparent. However, this is a question of degree, — a distinction without a difference. In other words, it is too much of a refinement to say that in 1934, the machine at Columbus did not produce substantially the same character of lumps of ice that the Orrison patent calls for, albeit they may have been somewhat less dear and free-flowing.” [ 97 F. Supp. 694 .]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.