Universal Carloading & Distributing Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “As to classification under the provision in paragraph 729, supra, we are unable to find that gluten, made from wheat flour, is a product similar to wheat flour. It is a product derived from a wheat product and is not similar thereto in material, quality, texture or use, as it has a new name, distinctive characteristics in its material and quality, and a use not interchangeable with wheat flour. Gluten may be used for baked products in the same manner as wheat flour only when it has been mixed with wheat flour. In its imported condition it has no such use. Although, in the Kuyper case, supra, the court was of the opinion that gluten was classifiable as “other wheat products” [paragraph 644, Tariff Act of 1913] as provided-for in the correlative paragraph to paragraph 729, supra, * * * we are of the opinion that the narrower meaning of “similar” wheat products, as contained in the present tariff act, clearly excludes it.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Maggi Co. v. United States