United States v. Bernard Citroen’s Empirical Analysis
223 U.S. 407 · 1912
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 167 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Stone & Downer Co. (1927), MITA Copystar America v. United States (1994)
18 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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
reviewedCitroen v. United States (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Hartranft v. Wiegmann · American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington · Worthington v. Robbins · United States v. Schoverling
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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'in order to produce uniformity in the imposition of duties, the dutiable classification of articles imported must be ascertained by an examination of the imported article itself, in the condition in which it is imported.'”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to avoid the specified duty on the article as a whole,”
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.