Sundry Goods Wares and Merchandises v. The United States’s Empirical Analysis
27 U.S. 358 · 1829
Citation profile
69 federal appellate · 26 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 176 later decisions (29 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably Carroll v. United States (1925), Huddleston v. United States (1974)
69 federal appellate · 26 district · 18 state decisions — followed in 14 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.
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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'ought not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious intention of the legislature'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where two or more persons are associated together for the same illegal purpose, any act or declaration of one of the parties, in reference to the common object, and forming a part of the rest gestee, may be given in evidence.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“all the provisions contained in (the 1802) Act, and consequently, those contained in the amendatory act of 1822, are by (the first section) expressly confined”
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.