Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 155 U.S. 240 - Muser v. Magone

Muser v. Magone’s Empirical Analysis

155 U.S. 240 · 1894

Citation profile

114
cited by 114 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
February 1988
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 9 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 114 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1988 · most notably Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad (1913), Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895)

26 federal appellate · 9 district · 24 state decisions

2001894190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Auffmordt v. Hedden · Cliquot's Champagne · Passavant v. United States · Hilton v. Merritt

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

  1. ““‘Market value’ * * * is the ‘price at which the owner of the goods or the pro ducer holds them for sale; the price at which they are freely offered in the market to all the world; such prices as dealers in the goods are willing to receive, and purchasers are made to pay, when the goods are bought and sold in the ordinary course of trade.’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “* * * Among such ways and means are market price or the quotations for a given day; amounts realized on sales, public and private; and in some instances the cost of production. The course of business at St. Gall in respect to these embroderies was peculiar, and to reach a result, in estimating the value, required the consideration of many elements making up the amount which actually represented the pecuniary basis of transactions. How these various elements impressed the general appraiser, and what grounds influenced or controlled his mental processes, were matters in respect of which he could not be interrogated, * * *. [Pp. 251, 252.]”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Yet, though the valuation is final, and not subject to review and change and reconstruction by the verdict of a jury, it is open to attack for want of power to make it; as where the appraisers are disqualified from acting, or have not examined the goods, or illegal items have been added independent of the value. The principle applied in such cases is analogous to that by which proceedings of a judicial nature are held invalid because of the absence of some strictly jurisdictional fact or facts essential to their validity.””
    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.