green
Positive treatment
11.9 score
Treatment trajectory · 1933 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1933
1979
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Giesecke & Devrient Gmbh v. United States
No. 104-373 at 2 (1995), 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4173, 4174 (citing Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fastship, LLC v. United States
No. 104-373, at 2 (1995), 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4173, 4174 (citing Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hitkansut LLC v. United States
No. 104-373, at 2 (1995), 1996 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4173, 4174 (citing Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Monessen Southwestern Railway Co. v. Morgan
(4×)
See, e. g., General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U. S. 648, 654-656 (1983); Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13, 16-17 (1933); Waite v. United States, 282 U. S. 508, 509 (1931).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Dynamics Corp. of America v. United States
Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 [ 51 S.Ct. 227, 227 , 75 L.Ed. 494 ] (1931).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Rec. 9881 (1946). [10] See Waite v. United States, 282 U. S. 508, 509 (1931); Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13, 16 (1933) (interest from time of the taking is necessary to constitute adequate compensation under the Fifth Amendment); Miller v. Robertson, 266 U. S. 243, 258 (1924) (prejudgment interest required for "full compensation").
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Tektronix, Inc. v. United States
Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pitcairn v. United States
This 'additional amount has been referred to as “delay compensation.” As stated by Justice Holmes in Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931), the “reasonable and entire compensation” provided by the statute “was intended to accomplish complete justice as between plaintiff and the United States.” The amount due as delay compensation is determined by multiplying the annually accrued royalties by an appropriate annual percentage rate.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Calhoun v. United States
We have already recalled (Part I, sufra) that the section under which plaintiffs sue is a congressional exercise of the federal eminent domain power '(see Irving Air Chute Co. v. United States, 117 Ct. Cl. 799, 802-03 , 93 F. Supp. 633 , 87 USPQ 246 (1950)); the statutory grant of “reasonable and entire compensation” has been taken as the equivalent of the Fifth Amendment’s “just compensation.” See, e.g., Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 (1931), citing non-patent eminent domain cases to warrant the award of interest under § 1498. 13 “Just compensation”, in the eminent d…
examined
Cited "see"
Boeing Co. v. United States
(3×)
See Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 , 51 S.Ct. 227 , 75 L.Ed. 494 (1931); Standard Mfg., 42 Fed.Cl. at 777 ; ITT Corp. v. United States, 17 Cl.Ct. 199, 232-33 (1989).
examined
Cited "see"
Paymaster Technologies, Inc. v. United States
(3×)
See Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 , 51 S.Ct. 227 , 75 L.Ed. 494 (1931); ITT Corp. v. United States, 17 Cl.Ct. 199, 232-33 (1989) (citing cases).
examined
Cited "see"
Gargoyles, Inc. v. United States
(3×)
See Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 , 51 S.Ct. 227, 227 , 75 L.Ed. 494 (1931).
examined
Cited "see"
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States
(3×)
See Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508 , 51 S.Ct. 227 , 75 L.Ed. 494 (1931). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Leesona Corp. v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508 (1931).
examined
Cited "see"
Leesona Corp. v. United States
(6×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508 , 51 S.Ct. 227 , 75 L.Ed. 494 (1931).
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Honeywell International Inc. v. United States
(3×)
Hence, delay compensation begins to accrue, ordinarily, as of the date of the taking[.]”); see also Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 , 51 S.Ct. 227 , 75 L.Ed. 494 (1931) (allowing interest on damages for unlicensed Government use of a patented invention); ITT Corp. v. United States, 17 Cl.Ct. 199, 233 (1989) (“The Court has also ruled that where payment ... is deferred ... something more is constitutionally required to compensate the owner for the delay in payment.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Federal Marketing Co. v. Virginia Impression Products Co.
(3×)
The court usually should award such “delay damages” in such cases “absent some justification for withholding such an award.” General Motors Corp. v. Devex Corp., 461 U.S. 648, 657 , 103 S.Ct. 2058 , 76 L.Ed.2d 211 (1983) (affirming award of prejudgment interest on reasonable royalties awarded as damages for patent infringement, though damages were unliquidated); see also Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 , 51 S.Ct. 227 , 75 L.Ed. 494 (1931) (holding that where patent owner had been awarded unliquidated damages for patent infringement in the form of lost profits, an award of pre…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Polaroid Corp. v. Offerman
(2×)
Id.; see also Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 , 75 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
Marvin L. Fishman and Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Estate of Arthur M. Wirtz, and Illinois Basketball, Inc. v. Estate of Arthur M. Wirtz
(6×)
See also Waite v. United States, 282 U.S. 508, 509 , 51 S.Ct. 227, 227 , 75 L.Ed. 494 (1931) (presumption in favor of prejudgment interest in patent law); Jacobs v. United States, 290 U.S. 13 , 54 S.Ct. 26 , 78 L.Ed. 142 (1933) (prejudgment interest is an essential ingredient of "just compensation" under the fifth amendment because necessary to make the private party whole).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Waite
v.
United States
v.
United States
103.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Feb 24, 1931.
Messrs. O. Ellery Edwards and Hyman M. Goldstein were on.the brief for petitioner., Solicitor General Thacker, Assistant Attorney General Bugg, and Mr. H. Brian Holland were on the brief for the United States.
Holmes.
Cited by 59 opinions | Published
Mr. Justice Holmes
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit under the Act of July 1, 1918, c. 114, 40 Stat.. 704, 705; U. S. Code, Title 35, § 68, to recover for the unlicensed use of a patented invention. The liability of the United States is established by the findings of the. Court of Claims and is not disputed. Neither is there any dispute that the profits that the plaintiff would have made are a proper measure of the damages suffered.' The Court of Claims, however, ruled that interest should not be allowed upon the amount so fixed, and a writ of cer-tiorari was granted by this Court upon that question.
The Government, without formally confessing error, states its. belief that interest should have been allowed.[*509] The statute grants ‘ recovery of his reasonable and entire compensation for such use.’ We are of opinion that interest should be allowed in order to make the compensation ‘ entire.’ In addition to the purpose of the word, adverted to in Richmond Screw Anchor Co. v. United States, 275 U. S. 331, 343, we cannot doubt that it was intended to accomplish complete justice as between the plaintiff and the United States. See Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299. Brooks-Scanlon Corp. v. United States, 265 U. S. 106. Liggett & Myers Tobacco Co. v. United States, 274 U. S. 215. Phelps v. United States, 274 U. S. 341.
Judgment reversed.