Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

246 federal appellate · 79 district · 66 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 794 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over' the admission of aliens.”

   38 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Helvering v. Mitchell · Fiallo Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Bell

2. ““The power to regulate commerce with foreign nations is expressly conferred upon Congress, and being an enumerated power is complete in itself, acknowledging no limitations other than those prescribed in the Constitution. Lottery Case, 188 U. S. 321 , 353-356; Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100 , 108. Whatever difference of opinion, if any, ■ may have existed or does exist concerning the limitations of the power, resulting from other provisions of the Constitution, so far as interstate commerce is concerned, it is not to be doubted that from the beginning Congress has exercised a plenary power in respect, to the exclusion of merchandise brought from foreign countries; not alone directly by the enactment of embargo statutes, but indirectly as a necessary result of provisions contained in tariff legislation. It has also, in other than tariff legislation, exerted a police power over foreign commerce by provisions which in and of themselves amounted to the assertion of the right to exclude merchandise at discretion. This is illustrated by statutory provisions which have been in force for more than fifty yéars, regulating the degree of strength of drugs, medicines, and chemicals entitled to admission into the United States and excluding such as did not equal the standards adopted. 9 Stat. 237 , chap. 70; Rev. Stat., § 2933, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1936.” And see Oceanic. Navigation Co. v. Stranahan, 214 U. S. 320 , 334, 335; The Abby Dodge, 223 U. S. 166 , 176.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Brolan v. United States

3. ““On the face of the section which authorizes the Secretary of Commerce and Labor to impose the exaction which is complained of, it is apparent that it does not purport to define and punish an infamous crime, or, indeed, any criminal offense whatever. Clear as is this conclusion from the text of section 9, when considered alone, it becomes, if possible, clearer when the section is enlightened by an analysis of the context, of the act and by a consideration of the report of the Senate committee to which we have previously made reference. * * * Its various sections accurately distinguish between those cases where it was intended that particular violations of the act should be considered as criminal and be punished accordingly, and those where it was contemplated that violations should not constitute crime, hut merely entail tlie infliction of a penally, enforceable in some, cases by purely administrative action and in others by civil suit.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thome v. Lynch