Junge v. Hedden’s Empirical Analysis
146 U.S. 233 · 1892
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably A. O. Andersen & Co. v. United States (1922), 304 F. Supp. 1187 - C. J. Tower & Sons of Buffalo, Inc. v. United States (1969)
21 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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 United States v. Fisher · Chicago v. Taylor · Natal v. State of Louisiana · Arthur's Executors v. Butterfield · Movius 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In common usage, “article” is applied to almost every separate substance or material, whether as a member of a class, or as a particular substance or commodity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nor are we impressed with the argument that, being rubber itself, it must be regarded as a material and not an article composed of rubber, for its adaptation to dental purposes has differentiated it commercially. Washing and scouring wool does not make the resulting wool a manufacture of wool; cleaning and ginning cotton does not make the resulting cotton a manufacture of cotton; but sulphur and coloring matter, when applied as here, make the resulting rubber, while still remaining rubber, an article of rubber as contradistinguished from rubber crude or rubber merely cleansed of impurities. [Emphasis added.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We agree with the Circuit Court that the word [articles] must be taken comprehensively and cannot he restricted to articles put in condition for final use, but embraces as well things manufactured only in part, or not at all.””
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.