In re Kollock’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 federal appellate · 46 district · 24 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 242 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Tlie act before us is on its face an act for levying taxes, and although it may operate in so doing to prevent deception in the sale of oleomargarine as and for butter, its primary object must be assumed to be the raising of revenue. And, considered as a revenue act, the designation of the stamps, marks and brands is merely in the discharge of an administrative function and falls within the numerous instances of regulations needful to the operation of the machinery of particular laws, authority to make which has always been recognized as within the competency of the legislative power to confer. * * * We concur with the Court of Appeals that this provision does not differ in principle from those of the Internal Revenue laws, which direct the Commissioner of Internal Revenue to prepare suitable stamps to be used on packages of cigars, tobacco and spirits; to change such stamps when deemed expedient; and to devise and regulate the means for affixing them. Rev. St. §§ 3312, 3305, 3445, 344C, etc. By section 3440 the Secretary and the Commissioner were empowered to alter or renew or change the form, style and device ‘of any stamp, mark or label used under any provision of the laws relating to distilled spirits, tobacco, snuff and cigars, when in their Judgment necessary for the collection of revenue taxes and thq prevention or detection of frauds thereon; and may make and publish such regulations for the use of such mark, stamp or label as they iind requisite’; and by the act of ”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wilkins v. United States · Dougherty v. United States

2. ““The regulation was in execution of, or supplementary to, but not in conflict with, the law itself, and was specifically authorized thereby in effectuation of the legislation which created the offense. We think the act not open to the objection urged, and that it is disposed of by previous decisions. United States v. Bailey, 34 U. S. (9 Pet.) 238, 9 L. Ed. 113 ; United States v. Eaton, 144 U. S. 677 , 12 Sup. Ct. 764 , 36 L. Ed. 591 ; Caha v. United States, 152 U. S. 211 , 14 Sup. Ct. 513 , 38 L. Ed. 415 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. 11,150 Pounds of Butter · United States v. Sugar

3. “It shall be unlawful for any person required to register under the provisions of this Act to import, manufacture, produce, compound, sell, deal in, dispense, distribute, administer, or give away any of the aforesaid drugs without having registered and paid the special tax as imposed by this section. Section 2. declares— “ That it shall be unlawful for any person to sell, barter, exchange, or give away any of the aforesaid drugs [opium, &c.] except in pursuance of a written order of the person to whom such article is sold, bartered, exchanged, or given, on a form to be issued in blank for that purpose by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. . . . “ The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, shall cause suitable forms to be prepared for the purposes above mentioned, and shall cause the same to be distributed to collectors of internal revenue for sale by them to those persons who shall have registered and paid the special tax as required by section one of this Act in their districts, respectively; . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Nigro v. United States