Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Potts Vs. Creager

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 07, 1895

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

33 entries 5 linked 28 unlinked
Show
  1. Roberts Vs. Ryer US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1875
  2. Atlantic Works Vs. Brady US Supreme Court · Mar 05, 1883
  3. Loom Company Vs. Higgins US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1881
  4. Hicks Vs. Kelsey US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1873
  5. Terhune Vs. Phillips US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1878
  6. U.S. 597 (1895) U.S. Supreme Court Potts v. Creager
    Search
  7. U.S. 597 (1895) Potts v. Creager
    Search
  8. Court has denied invention to one who applied the principle of an ice-cream freezer to the preservation of fish, Brown v. Piper
    Search
  9. of a refrigerator in such manner as to utilize the descending instead of the ascending current of cold air, Roberts v. Ryer
    Search
  10. old and well known method of attaching car trucks to the forward truck of a locomotive engine, Pennsylvania Railroad v. Locomotive
    Search
  11. and to still another who placed a dredging screw at the stem instead of the stern of a steamboat, Atlantic Works v. Brady
    Search
  12. U. S. 192 . In Tucker v. Spalding
    Search
  13. Rue, 139 U. S. 601 . So also, in Crane v. Price
    Search
  14. of iron at a less expense, although bituminous coal had been previously used for the same purpose. See also Steiner v. Heald
    Search
  15. may be safely trusted to see what ought to be apparent to everyone. As was said by Mr. Justice Bradley in Loom Company v. Higgins
    Search
  16. of material for the more perfect accomplishment of the same work, it would, within the familiar cases of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood
    Search
  17. How. 248, Hicks v. Kelsey
    Search
  18. Wall. 670, Terhune v. Phillips
    Search
  19. U. S. 592 , and Brown v. District
    Search
  20. had been employed. Under such circumstances, we have repeatedly held that a change of material was invention. Smith v. Goodyear
    Search
  21. Goodyear Dental Vulcanite Co. v. Davis
    Search
  22. thereafter defendants themselves obtained a patent upon a machine of their own to accomplish it. As we said in Smith v. Goodyear
    Search
  23. Dental Vulcanite Co., 93 U. S. 486 , and Magowan v. New
    Search
  24. U.S. Supreme Court Potts v. Creager
    Search
  25. Brown v. Piper
    Search
  26. Pennsylvania Railroad v. Locomotive
    Search
  27. In Tucker v. Spalding
    Search
  28. Crane v. Price
    Search
  29. Steiner v. Heald
    Search
  30. of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood
    Search
  31. and Brown v. District
    Search
  32. Smith v. Goodyear
    Search
  33. and Magowan v. New
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial