Sarlls v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
152 U.S. 570 · 1894
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 35 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2001 · most notably United States v. Dotterweich (1943), United States v. Anderson (1926)
19 federal appellate · 35 state decisions — followed in 14 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 United States v. Wiltberger · Hollender v. Magone · In re McDonough · State v. Adams
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In Tinker v. State , (Alabama,) [ 90 Ala. 647 ] 8 South.Rep. 855 [1891] it was said: 'Malt liquors have neither vinous nor spirituous liquors as an ingredient. Spirituous liquors, vinous liquors, and malt liquors are not synonymous terms, but each refers to a liquor separate and distinct from each other. Lager beer is a malt liquor, and the courts take judicial notice of the fact. The statute having prohibited the sale of spirituous and vinous liquors only, malt liquors are not included. It was error, therefore, to charge the jury that a sale of lager beer was in violation of the statute.' "There are other cases in which the terms were similarly construed by state courts, but which it is unnecessary here to cite. "To the contrary of these definitions and decisions, the principal case is that of State v. Giersch , [ 98 N.C. 720 ], 4 S.E.Rep. 193 , the reasoning and conclusion wherein were adopted by the court below. That was a case where a statute of North Carolina (Code, §§ 3110, 3116) prohibited the introduction and sale of spirituous liquors, and the court held those terms to be generic, and to include all intoxicating liquors containing alcohol, whether distilled, fermented, or vinous. "The reasoning on which such a conclusion is reached excludes the common and popular signification of the words, and finds the meaning of the statute in the fact, true in a scientific sense, that alcohol is found in fermented, as well as in distilled, liquors, and that the purpose of the st”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“ale, beer, wine, or intoxicating liquor or liquors of whatever kind,”
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.