United States v. Emil Dieckerhoff’s Empirical Analysis
202 U.S. 302 · 1906
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1988 · most notably Waters-Pierce Oil Company v. State of Texas (1909), United States v. Zerbey (1926)
37 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
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
reviewedUnited States v. Cutajar (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Clark v. Barnard · Forsyth v. City of Hammond · United States v. Hodson · Moses v. United States · The United States v. Thomas Tingey
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But we think the purpose of the statute and the purpose of the requirement in the bond provided for therein, and the one given in this case, was to secure the performance of the duty imposed of returning the package or packages, where an importer availed himself of the privilege of withdrawing merchandise from the custody of the governmental officials before it has been examined and appraised. * * *, we think it was the intention of the law to provide specific damages to be recovered upon the nonperformance of the duty imposed, and to secure a prompt and faithful discharge of which the statute provides for the giving of a bond. * * * “We think such undertaking, for this manner of discharging this duty, or paying the value stipulated, was intended to and does relieve the government from the necessity of showing any actual damage or loss.””
2 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.