Cheung Sum Shee v. Nagle’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The wives and minor children of resident Chinese merchants were guaranteed the right of entry by the treaty of 1880 and certainly possessed it prior to July 1st when the present Immigration Act became effective. United States v. Mrs. Gue Lim, supra [ 176 U. S. 459 , 20 S. Ct. 415 , 44 L. Ed. 544 ]. That act must be construed with the view to preserve treaty rights unless clearly annulled, and we cannot conclude that, considering its history, the general terms therein disclose a congressional intent absolutely to exclude the petitioners from entry. “In a certain sense it is true that petitioners did not come ‘solely to carry on trade.’ But Mrs. Gue Lim did not come as a ‘merchant.’ She was nevertheless allowed to enter, upon the theory that a treaty provision admitting merchants by necessary implication extended to their wives and minor children, This rule was not unknown to Congress when considering the act now before us.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex parte Poy · Shizuko Kumanomido v. Nagle

2. ““Chinese subjects, whether proceeding to the United States as teachers, students, merchants or from curiosity, together with their body and household servants, and Chinese laborers who are now in the United States shall be allowed to go and come of their own- free will and accord, and shall be accorded all the rights, privileges, immunities, and exemptions which are accorded to the citizens and subjects of the most favored nation.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jeu Jo Wan v. Nagle · Shizuko Kumanomido v. Nagle

3. ““The appellees, who are merchants, were clearly admissible under the act of 1884 [8 USCA § 265], and they are still admissible, unless excluded by some provision of the act of 1924. The only two provisions of the latter aet which have any bearing on the question now under consideration are clause 6 of section 3 and section 15 [8 USCA §§ 203 (6), 215]. The former we have already quoted, and the latter provides that the admission to the United States of an alien excepted by clause 6 of section 3 shall be for such time and under such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed, including, when deemed necessary, the giving of bond with sufficient surety, in such sum and containing such conditions as may be by regulations prescribed, to insure that at the expiration of such time, or upon failure to maintain the status under which admitted, he will depart from the United States. “Clause 6 of section 3 excepts aliens who are entitled to enter the United States solely to carry on trade under and in pursuance of the' provisions of a present existing treaty of commerce and navigation. If the acts of 1882 and 1884 [enacted to execute certain stipulations of the treaty with China] have been superseded and abrogated, how are the immigration authorities or the courts to ascertain or determine who are entitled to admission under the foregoing provision? The treaty between the United States and,China ( 22 Stat. 826 ) consists of four brief articles and is not self executing. Article IY pr”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Haff v. Yung Poy