Seeberger v. Cahn’s Empirical Analysis
137 U.S. 95 · 1890
Citation profile
9 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1927 · most notably United States v. Stone & Downer Co. (1927), United States v. Ballin (1892)
9 federal appellate ·
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 Nelson Elliott v. Samuel Swartwout · Reiche v. Smythe · Arthur v. Lahey · Arthur v. Morrison · Swan v. Arthur
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“all manufactures of every description, composed wholly or in part of worsted.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ In the interpretation of the customs acts, nothing is better settled than that words are to receive their commercial meaning/and that when goods of a pai’ticular kind, which would otherwise be comprehended in a class, are subjected to a distinct rate of duty from that imposed upon the class generally, they are taken out of that class for the purpose of the assessment of duties. “ Of the two successive paragraphs in the. customs act of 1883, upon which the parties respectively rely, the first imposes a certain scale of duties on ‘all manufactures of wool-of every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not spe daily enumerated or provided for in this act; ’ and the second imposes a lower scale of duties on ‘ all manufactures of every description, composed wholly or in part of worsted.’ . . . “Though worsted is doubtless a product of wool, and might in some aspects be considered a manufacture of-avooI, yet manufactures of Avorsted being subjected by the second paragraph to different duties from those imposed by the first paragraph on manufactures of avooI, it necessarily follows that a manufacture of Avorsted cannot be considered as a manufacture of avooI, Avithin the meaning of this statute.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Though worsted is doubtless a product of wool, and might in some aspects be considered a manufacture of-avooI, yet manufactures of Avorsted being subjected by the second paragraph to different duties from those imposed by the first paragraph on manufactures of avooI, it necessarily follows that a manufacture of Avorsted cannot be considered as a manufacture of avooI, Avithin the meaning of this statute.””
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.