Powell v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. ““There can be no question but that this evidence was sufficient to sustain a finding by the court that the shipment from Goldsboro to Wilmington was but a step in the transportation of the scrap iron to its real and ultimate destination in a foreign country. The case is not one of shipment to a point of collection or distribution, where the original movement comes to an end and further transportation depends upon sale or other circumstance. The journey in foreign commerce had commenced, and the mere fact that transfer of title at the port was contemplated and that inspection with right of rejection was provided for, did not change its essential character. Directly in point, we think, is the case of Texas & N. O. R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U.S. 111 , 33 S.Ct. 229, 234 , 57 L.Ed. 442 , a case involving a shipment of lumber from an inland point in Texas to the port of Sabine, Texas, for export. In holding that the fact that a foreign destination was intendéd at the time of shipment was determinative, and that the character of the shipment as being one in foreign commerce was not affected by the fact that it was shipped to the exporter under an order notify bill of lading or that the original shipper had no further control over it after its arrival at the port of Sabipe, the court said: ‘It is said, however, that the Sabine Company had no connection with the lumber after its arrival at Sabine, and had no concern with its destination after it came into the hands of Powell Comp”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 222 F. Supp. 573 - Great Northern Railway Company v. Thompson

2. “While intent is, in a certain sense essential to the commission of a crime, and in some classes of cases it is necessary to show moral turpitude in order to make out a crime, there is a class of cases within which we think the one under consideration falls, where purposely doing a thing prohibited by statute may amount to an offense, although the act does not involve turpitude or moral wrong. In this case the statutes provide it shall be penal to receive transportation of goods at less than the published rate. Whether shippers who pay a rate under the honest belief that it is the lawfully established rate, when in fact it is not, are liable under the statute because of a duty resting on them to inform themselves as to the existence of the elements essential to establish a rate as required by law, is a question not decided because not arising on this record. The stipulated facts show that the shippers had knowledge of the rates published and shipped the goods under a contention of their legal right to do so. This was all the knowledge or guilty intent that the act required.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Union Petroleum Corp. v. United States

3. ““ * * * (T)he nature of the shipment is not dependent upon the question when or to whom the title passes. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Clark Bros. Coal Mining Co., 238 U.S. 456, 465, 466 [ 35 S.Ct. 896 , 59 L.Ed. 1406 ] * * *. It is determined by the essential character of the commerce. Baltimore & Ohio S.W.R. Co. v. Settle, 260 U.S. 166, 170 [ 43 S.Ct. 28 , 67 L.Ed. 189 ] * * *. It is not affected by the fact that the transaction is initiated or completed under a local bill of lading which is wholly intrastate, Ohio R. R. Commission v. Worthington, 225 U.S. 101, 108-110 [ 32 S.Ct. 653 , 56 L.Ed. 1004 ] * * *; Texas & New Orleans R. Co. v. Sabine Tram Co., 227 U.S. 111 [ 33 S.Ct. 229 , 57 L.Ed. 442 ] * * *; Hughes Bros. Timber Co. v. Minnesota, 272 U.S. 469 [ 47 S.Ct. 170 , 71 L.Ed. 359 ] * * *; or by the fact that there may be a detention before or after the shipment on the local bill of lading, Carson Petroleum Co. v. Vial, 279 U.S. 95 [ 49 S.Ct. 292 , 73 L.Ed. 626 ] * Id., at 766.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Farmers Union Cooperative Marketing Ass'n v. State Corp. Commission