Davies v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis
130 U.S. 284 · 1889
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 82 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1999 · most notably Belford Clarke Co v. Scribner (1892), Schell v. Fauch E (1891)
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 · Marriott v. Brune · Barney Collector v. Watson et al.
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 82 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * * * * * But the matter to 'which the notice of dissatisfaction applies is the decision of the collector on the rate and amount of the duties; the whole purpose of the notice is to give the collector opportunity to revise that decision; and that purpose is as well accomplished by giving the notice as soon as the goods have been entered and the duties estimated by the collector, as by postponing the giving of the notice until after the: final ascertainment and, liquidation of the duties has been made and stamped upon the entry. [Italics added.]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“within ten days after the ascertainment and liquidation of the duties,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The clause requiring the importer to give such notice ‘within ten days after the ascertainment and liquidation of the duties’ must therefore, according to the fair and reasonable interpretation of the words as applied to the subject matter, be held to fix only the terminus ad quern, the limit beyond which the notice shall not be given, and not to fix the final ascertainment and liquidation of the duties as the terminus a quo, or the first point of time at which the notice may be given.””
1 later decision 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.