Solomon v. Arthur’s Empirical Analysis
102 U.S. 208 · 1880
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1965 · most notably Arnold Constable Co v. United States (1893), Seeberger v. Schlesinger (1894)
6 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 Smythe v. Fiske · Reiche v. Smythe · Movius v. Arthur · Arthur v. Zimmerman
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Manufactures composed of mixed materials, in part of cotton, silk,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“manufactures made of mixed materials, in part of cotton, si]k,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is observable that the description of ‘ manufactures made of mixed materials, in part of cotton, si]k,’ etc., is-more general than that of ‘manufactures of which silk is tHe component part of chief value.’ Logically, the two phrases standing together in the same act or system of.' laws would be. related as follows: ‘ (roods made of mixed_r ateríais, cotton, silk, etc.¿ shall pay a duty of thirty-five per o *nt; hut if silk is the component part of chief -value, they shall pay a duty of fifty per cent.5 55 Applying the same rule of construction here, the circuit judge, in deciding this case, and holding that the goods were dutiable under Schedule “ L,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hartranft v. Meyer
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.