Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 187 U.S. 496 - Downs v. United States

Downs v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

187 U.S. 496 · 1903

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
8
cited 8 times by the Supreme Court
May 1997
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1997 · most notably J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States (1928), Zenith Radio Corp. v. United States (1978)

3701903191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedDowns v. United States (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Hartranft v. Wiegmann · United States v. Passavant · Allen v. Smith · Downs v. United States

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

  1. “It is practically admitted in this case that a bounty equal to the value of these certificates is paid by the Russian government, and the main argument of the petitioner is addressed to the proposition that this bounty is paid, not upon exportation, but upon production.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “§ 1303. Countervailing duties. (a) Levy of countervailing duties. (1) Whenever any country, dependency, colony, province, or other political subdivision of government, person, partnership, association, cartel, or corporation, shall pay or bestow, directly or indirectly, any bounty or grant upon the manufacture or production or export of any article or merchandise manufactured or produced in such country, dependency, colony, province, or other political subdivision of government, then upon the importation of such article or merchandise into the United States, whether the same shall be imported directly from the country of production or otherwise, and whether such article or merchandise is imported in the same condition as when exported from the country of production or has been changed in condition by remanufacture or otherwise, there shall be levied and paid, in all such cases, in addition to any duties otherwise imposed, a duty equal to the net amount of such bounty or grant, however the same be paid or bestowed.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The details of this elaborate procedure for the production, sale, taxation and exportation of Russian sugar are of much less importance than the two facts which appear clearly through this maze of regulations, viz.: that no sugar is permitted to be sold in Russia that does not pay an excise tax of R. 1.75 per pood and that sugar exported pays no tax at all. . When a tax is imposed upon all sugar produced, but is remitted upon all sugar exported, then, by whatever process, or in whatever manner, or under whatever name, it is disguised, it is a bounty on exportation.”
    4 later decisions 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.