Erhardt v. Schroeder’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 2 district · 8 state decisions

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

1. ““In the case of customs duties, however, a party dissatisfied with the classification of imports may apply to the courts to have examined and reviewed everything involving the legality of the demand which has been made upon him by a collector, and statutes containing directions to government officials, as to the manner in which they shall become informed of the dutiable character of merchandise, afford importers an altogether different kind of protection from that just mentioned. At most, a neglect of such provisions operates to no greater disadvantage to a party than to subject him to the necessity of bringing an action which he might not have felt impelled to bring if the tax had been ascertained in the manner prescribed. The unlawful demand of the duty does not conclude his rights, but, at the most, merely lays upon him, the inconvenience of going before a tribunal in which those rights will be declared. “An examination of one package in ten of the merchandise might have shown to the satisfaction of the collector that the importation was of the character the importer claimed it to bei; the examination of one package in fourteen may have given the collector a different impression to the disadvantage of the importer. But the proceedings do not necessarily end with the collector’s decision, and the importer’s rights are not finally fixed until the character of the goods has been found by a court. “The protection of the convenience only of a taxpayer is not of such a vital nat”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Joanna Western Mills Co. v. United States · Carey v. United States

2. ““ The collector shall designate on the invoice at least one package of every invoice, and one package at least of every ten packages of merchandise, and a greater number should he or either of the appraisers deem it necessary, imported into such port, to be -opened, examined and appraised, and shall order the package so designated to the public stores for examination ; and if any package be found by the appraisers to contain any article not specified in the invoice, and they or a majority of them shall be of opinion that such article was omitted in the invoice with fraudulent intent on the part of the shipper, owner or agent, the contents of the entire package in which the article may be, shall be liable to seizure and forfeiture on conviction thereof before any court of competent jurisdiction ; but if the appraisers shall be of opinion that no such fraudulent intent existed, then the value of such article shall be added to the entry, and the duties thereon paid according^, and the same shall be delivered to the importer, agent or consignee. Such forfeiture may, however, be remitted by the Secretary of the Treasury on the production of evidence satisfactory to him that no fraud was intended.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Ranlett & Stone · Joanna Western Mills Co. v. United States

3. “The question of the value of the goods could not he raised in an action against the collector, and an attack upon the legality of the appraisement, for the purpose of having it declared illegal, and the goods therefore declared dutiable at the value stated in the invoice, would be the only means of redress by a court for an illegal exaction of duties based upon an erroneous valuation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Bloomingdale Bros. & Co.