Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 U.S. 581 - Seeberger v. Schlesinger

Seeberger v. Schlesinger’s Empirical Analysis

152 U.S. 581 · 1894

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
November 1997
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1997 · most notably Buttfield v. Stranahan (1904), United States v. Bernard Citroen (1912)

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions

23018941900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Insurance Company v. Boon · St. Louis v. Ferry Co. · Allen v. St. Louis Bank · Tyng v. Grinnell

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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “We do not wish to be understood as holding that, if the metal be a mere incident or an immaterial part of the completed article, as, for instance, the screws or knobs upon an article of household furniture, or the buttons upon an article of clothing, such articles should be classified as manufactures in part of metal; but where, as in this case, they form a necessary and substantial part of the article, we think this clause should determine their classification. ' Particularly is this so in view of the fact that opera glasses are frequently made of glass and metal alone, or with an outer covering of leather, which would form an inconsiderable part of the total expense. It would be obviously unjust that these cheaper glasses should pay a duty of forty-five percent while the more expensive glasses with shell coverings are dutiable only as manufactures of shell at twenty-five percent.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in case of special findings by the court to raise the question whether the facts found support the judgment,”
    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.