Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 109 U.S. 238 - Arnson v. Murphy

Arnson v. Murphy’s Empirical Analysis

109 U.S. 238 · 1883

Citation profile

180
cited by 180 later decisions
46
cited 46 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
October 2004
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 21 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 180 later decisions (46 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2004 · most notably Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board (1943), George Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose (1933)

47 federal appellate · 21 district · 9 state decisions

4201883189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 William Cary and Samuel Cary v. Edward Curtis · Nelson Elliott v. Samuel Swartwout · Barney Collector v. Watson et al. · Torpy v. United States

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

  1. “Any person who shall have made payment, under protest and in order to obtain possession of merchandise imported for him, to any collector or person acting as collector of any money as duties, when such amount of duties was not, or was not wholly, authorized by law, may maintain an action in the nature of an action at law, which shall be triable by jury, to ascertain the validity of such demand and payment of duties, and to recover back any excess so paid. But no recovery shall be allowed in such action unless a protest and appeal shall have been taken as prescribed in section twenty-nine hundred and thirty one.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “. [I]t is apparent that the common-law action recognized as appropriate by the decision in Elliot v. Swartwout, . has been converted into an action based entirely on a different principle, — that of a statutory liability, instead of an implied promise, — which, if not originated by the act of Congress, yet is regulated, as to all its incidents, by express statutory provisions. [Emphasis supplied]”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “which, by legislative construction of the Act of 1839, restored to the claimant his right of action against the collector....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.