Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 24 F.1d 692 - United States v. Boyd

United States v. Boyd’s Empirical Analysis

24 F. 692 · 1885

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
April 1991
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1991

3 federal appellate · 2 district ·

20188518901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on The United States v. Vowell and M'Clean

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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[Sjuch an application there must be deemed one of the steps belonging to an attempt to enter the goods, and consequently any false paper presented, and designed by the defendant to be present ed, to the secretary of the treasury for the purpose of obtaining the order for the free entry, cannot be considered as a remote or indirect cause only, but as the direct procuring cause of the free entry. The subsequent acts of the collector in conformity with the direction of his superior in entering the goods as free, were merely a formal compliance with what had already been determined upon the defendant’s application in Washington. In effect, the attempt to enter these goods as free was made at Washington, on application to the head of the department, and not, as in ordinary cases, upon application at the custom-house here.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““If the act or attempt is to enter merchandise by a false statement, etc., of a character which is calculated to deprive the United. States of duty, the statute is satisfied. The' use of the future tense is consistent with this interpretation. If the statute had used the word ‘will,’ instead of ‘shall,’ no one would doubt that this would be the meaning.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.