Hepner v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
213 U.S. 103 · 1909
Citation profile
123 federal appellate · 39 district · 47 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 309 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Curtis v. Loether (1974), United States Marcus v. Hess (1943)
123 federal appellate · 39 district · 47 state decisions — followed in 18 states
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
reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Boyd v. United States · Sparf v. United States · Improvement Company v. Munson · Pleasants v. Fant
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 309 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘It must therefore be considered as remedial, as providing indemnity for loss. And it is not the less so because the liability of the wrongdoer is measured by double the value of the goods received, concealed, or purchased, instead of their single value. The act of abstracting goods illegally imported, receiving, concealing, or buying them, interposes difficulties in the way of a government seizure, and impairs, therefore, the value of the government right. It is, then, hardly accurate to say that the only loss the government can sustain from concealing the goods liable to seizure is their single value, or to assert that the liability imposed by the statute of double the value is arbitrary and without reference to indemnification. Double the value may not be more than complete indemnity. * * * “ ‘The act of 1823 was, as we have seen, remedial in its nature. Its purpose was to secure full compensation for interference with the rights of the United States.’”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he defendant was, of course, entitled to have a jury summoned in this case ...”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Tf, in a civil action to recover a penalty, the defendant is entitled, the evidence being undisputed, to have a peremptory instruction in his behalf, it is difficult to perceive why the government is not entitled to a peremptory Instruction In its favor, where the undisputed testimony left no facts for the jury to consider, but established, beyond all question and as matter of law, its right to judgment .for the prescribed penalty.””
1 later decision 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.