Arthur v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
108 U.S. 125 · 1883
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1958 · most notably Komada Company v. United States (1910), Mason v. Robertson (1891)
16 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 · Davies v. Arthur · Murphy v. Arnson · John Stuart Joseph Stuart James Stuart and William Scott v. Hugh Maxwell
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * If an article is found not enumerated in the tariff laws, then the first inquiry is whether it “bears a similitude, either in material, quality, texture, or use to which it may be applied, to any article enumerated * * * as chargeable as with duty.” If it does, and the similitude is substantial, then, in the language of the court in Stuart v. Maxwell, supra, “it is to be deemed the same, and to be charged accordingly.” In other words, although not specifically enumerated, it is provided for under the name of the article it most resembles.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It the act of 1846 has specially provided for manufactures of cotton, and nas at the same time left in force a rule of law which enacts that all manufactures of which cotton is a component part shall be deemed to be manufact ures of cotton if not otherwise provided for, it has in effect provided for the latter. By providing for the principal thing, it has provided for all other tilings which the law declares to be the same. It is only upon this ground that sheer and manifest evasions can be reached.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lloyd v. McWilliams“material, quality, texture or the use to which it may be applied,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mason v. Robertson
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.