Magone v. Wiederer’s Empirical Analysis
159 U.S. 555 · 1895
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 15 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1970 · most notably Universal Battery Co. v. United States (1930), Giles v. Harris (1903)
19 federal appellate · 15 district ·
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 Worthington v. Robbins · Maillard v. Lawrence · Magone v. Heller · Sonn v. Magone
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * The charge given by the court below, and which was excepted to, was manifestly correct, for in giving the rule of chief use the principles by which chief use was to be ascertained were fully stated exactly in accordance with the law subsequently announced by this court in Magone v. Seller [ 150 U.S. 70 ,87 L. ed. 1001].”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * And so I will say to you, as the law of the case, as I understand it, that if you find that these articles were chiefly used as parts of clocks, that would determine their tariff classification.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““ If exclusive use were made the test, then an exception would destroy the rule; for however general and universal the use of a particular article might be, if exceptionally used for another purpose, such use would destroy the effect of the general and common use, and make the exception the controlling factor. It is urged that if exclusive use is not made the criterion it will be impossible to assess duties, because of the difficulty of ascertaining the chief or general and common use; but it is manifest that this argument of inconvenience is a mistaken one, and that, on the contrary, it would be impossible to resort to use as a criterion of classification if exclusive use must be ascertained in so doing, for that which is generally and commonly done may be known, but that which is so universally done as to be without any exception is difficult, if not impossible, of ascertainment.””
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.