Mason v. Robertson’s Empirical Analysis
139 U.S. 624 · 1891
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1969 · most notably Magone v. Heller (1893), Junge v. Hedden (1892)
3 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 Arthur's Executors v. Butterfield · Arthur v. Fox · Hartranft v. Meyer · Arthur v. Sussfield
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The designation, “all chemical compounds and salts, by whatever name known,” includes all chemical compounds and chemical salts, used then or thereafter in any science or art, as clearly as if the proper names of each and all of them had been given.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The general scope of the similitude clause in the customs acts is defined in a recent judgment of this court, delivered by Mr. Justice Field, as follows: “To place articles among those designated as enumerated, it is not necessary that they should be specifically mentioned. It is sufficient that they are designated in any way to distinguish them from other articles.” Thus, the words “manufactures of which steel is a component part” and “manufactures of which glass is a component part,” have been held a sufficient designation to render the goods enumerated articles under the statute and take them out of the similitude clause. Arthur v. Sussfeld ( 96 U. S., 128 ). Upon the same principle, “manufactures of hair” must be held a sufficient designation to place “such manufactures among the enumerated articles.” Arthur v. Butterfield ( 125 U. S., 70, 76, 77 ). So the description, “manufactures composed wholly of cotton,” Or even “manufactures of cotton,” has been held to be a sufficient enumeration. Stuart v. Maxwell ( 16 How., 150 ); Fisk v. Arthur ( 103 U. S., 431 ); see also Hartranft v. Meyer ( 135 U. S., 237 ).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Sec. 2502. There shall be levied, collected and paid upon all articles imported from foreign countries, and mentioned in the schedules herein contained, the rates of duty which are, by the schedules, respectively prescribed, namely:”
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Rossman v. Hedden · Junge v. Hedden
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.