United States v. Laws’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 22 district · 39 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"This amendment to the statute of 1885, although passed subsequently to the decision in the Circuit Court and prior to the decision of the same case in this court, was not mentioned in the opinion in this court, because the review was had upon the record based upon the act as originally passed in 1885. If by the terms of the original act the provisions thereof applied only to unskilled laborers whose presence simply tended to degrade American labor, the meaning of the act as amended by the act of 1891 becomes, if possible, still plainer. Now by its very terms it is not intended to appiy to any person belonging to any recognized profession. We think a chemist would be included in that class. Although the study of chemistry is the. study of a science, yet a chemist who occupies himself in the practical use of his knowledge of chemistry as'his services may be demanded may certainly at this time be fairly regarded as in the practice of a profession. One definition of a profession is an ‘employment, especially an employment requiring a learned education, as those of divinity, law, and physic.’ Worcester’s Dictionary, title ‘Profession.’ In the Century Dictionary the definition of the word ‘profession’ is given, among others, as ‘a vocation in which a professed knowledge of some department of science or learning is used by its practical application to the affairs of others, either in advising, guiding, or teaching them, or in serving their interests or welfare in the practice of an”

   9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex parte Kunijiro Toguchi · Tatsukichi Kuwabara v. United States

2. ““Again, another guide to the meaning of a statute is found in the evil which it is designed to remedy; and for this the court properly looks at con temporaneous events, the situation as it existed, and as It was pressed upon the attention of the legislative body. United States v. Union Pacific Railroad, 91 U. S. 72 , 79 [ 23 L. Ed. 224 ]. The situation which called for this statute was briefly, but fully, stated by Mr. Justice Brown, when, as District Judge, he decided the case of United States v. Craig [C. C.] 28 Fed. 795 , 798: ‘The motives and history of the act are matters of common knowledge. It had become the practice for large capitalists in this country to contract with their agents abroad for the shipment of great numbers of an ignorant and servile class oi foreign laborers, under contracts, by which the employer agreed, upon the one hand, to prepay their passage, while, upoh the other hand, the laborers agreed to work after their arrival for a certain time at a low rate of wages. -The effect of this was to break down the labor market, and to reduce other laborers engaged in like occupations to the level of the assisted immigrant. The evil finally became so flagrant that an appeal was made to Congress for relief by the passage of the act in question, the design of which was to raise the standard of foreign immigrants, and to discountenance the migration of those who had not sufficient means in their own hands, or those of their friends, to pay their passage.’ ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Gay · Botis v. Davies

3. ““It is not necessary that he should offer his services to the public at large, nor that he should hold himself ready to apply his scientific knowledge and skill to the business of all persons who applied for them before he would be entitled to claim that he belonged to, and was actually practicing, a recognized profession. * * * So long as he is engaged in the practical application of his knowledge of the science, as a vocation, it is not important whether he holds himself out as ready to make that application in behalf of all persons who desire it, or that he contracts to do it for some particular employer and at some named place.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Morrison · Maderazo v. Farrell