Newman v. Arthur’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

19 federal appellate · 3 district · 8 state decisions

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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The fact that at the date of the passage of the act goods of the kind in question had not been manufactured, cannot withdraw them from the class to which they belong, as described in the statute, where, as in the present case, the language fairly and clearly includes them.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. R. J. Saunders & Co. v. United States · Tower v. United States

2. ““ Sec. 2504. On all manufactures of cotton, except jeans, denims, drillings, bed-tickings, ginghams, plaids, cottonades, pantaloon stuff, and goods of like description, not bleached, colored, stained, painted, or printed, and not exceeding one hundred threads to the square inch, counting the warp and filling, and exceeding in weight five ounces per square yard ; if bleached, five cents and a half per square yard; if colored^ stained, painted, or printed, five cents and a half per square yard, and in addition thereto, ten per centum ad valorem. “ On finer and lighter goods of like description, not exceed--ing two hundred threads to the square inch, counting the warp and filling, unbleached, five cents per yard; if bleached, five and a half cents per square yard; if colored, stained, painted, or printed, five and a half cents, per square yard,, and, in addition thereto, twenty per centum ad valorem.” “ Cotton braids, inserting?, lace, trimming, or bobbinet, and all other manufactures of cotton, not otherwise provided for, thirty-five per centum ad valorem.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hedden v. Robertson

3. “because the law fixes the rate of duty by a classification based on the number of threads in a square inch, without reference to the mode in which the count is to be made. It might be quite convenient for dealers not to count the threads except when they could do so without un-ravelling, but it is a pure conjecture that Congress intended so to stop the count by collectors at the same limit. There appears to be no difficulty in counting threads no matter how fine the fabric, as long as the goods are plain woven; and the necessity of unravelling for the purpose of counting seems to exist only in-case of twilled goods; and yet this very act requires a count of threads in the case of jeans, denims,,diall-ings, bed-tickings, etc., which are twilled, and bases a differ ence of duty upon them according to tbe number of threads to the square inch so ascertained.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hedden v. Robertson