American Steel Wire Company v. R a Speed’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

23 federal appellate · 27 district · 115 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 315 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““With these facts in hand we are of opinion that the court below was right in deciding that the goods were not in transit, but, on the contrary, had reached their destination at Memphis, and were there held in store at the risk of the Steel Company, to be sold and delivered as contracts for that purpose were completely consummated. ’ ’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. West India Oil Co. v. Sancho Bonet · 106 Cal. App. 587 - Yellow Cab Manufacturing Co. v. City of San Diego

2. ““The agent of the manufacturer of clocks in another state, who takes orders for them in Louisiana, is not subject to the payment of a license tax. “The agent would be liable to the tax imposed by section 23, Act No. 150 of 1890, if the clocks had been shipped to Louisiana, and, after they had been located in Louisiana, the agent, by peddling them, disposed of them. “If the manufacturer in another state sends an agent to Louisiana to find a purchaser for his manufactured goods still at the factory, and he takes orders, and the goods are shipped directly to the agent, to be delivered to the purchaser, he is not liable to said license tax imposed by said act. It is immaterial whether the sale is perfected by delivery. The clause of the Constitution of the United States which declares that Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several States extends to negotiations for the sale of manufactured articles solicited in another State. Therefore any license tax imposed upon an agent or solicitor for soliciting orders for said goods by sample is in violation of said clause of the Constitution of the United States.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State v. Paramount Publix Corporation

3. ““ But the goods not having been brought from abroad, they were not imported in the legal sense and were subject to state taxation after they had reached their destination and whilst held in the State for sale,” and cited the cases of Woodruff v. Parham, and Brown v. Houston. Speaking of these cases, the Justice said: “ Those two cases, decided, the one more than thirty-five and the other more than eighteen years ago, are decisive of every contention urged on this record dépending on the import and the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, The doctrine which the two cases announced has never since been questioned. It has become the basis of taxing power exerted for years, by all the States of the Union.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton