Samuel Harris v. James Dennie’s Empirical Analysis
28 U.S. 292 · 1830
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 11 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1979 · most notably James L. v. Carryl (1857), John Brown v. _____ Duchesne (1856)
8 federal appellate · 11 district · 10 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.
Relationships
Relies on Martin Fairfax v. Hunter's · Williams v. Norris · Miller United States v. Nicholls · Inglee v. Coolidge
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is plain that these [present] proceedings are at war with the notion that any state officer can, in the interval, [pending payment of or entry of security for customs duties], have any possession or right to control the disposition of these goods; and the United States have nowhere recognised or provided for a concurrent possession or custody by any such officer. In short, the United States having a lien on the goods for the payment of the duties accruing thereon, and being entitled to a virtual custody of them from the time of their arrival in port until the duties are paid or secured, any attachment by a state officer is an interference with such lien and right of custody; and being repugnant to the laws of the United States, is void.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““From the moment of their arrival in port, the goods [imported from a foreign country] are, in legal contemplation, in the custody of the United States; and every proceeding which interferes with, or obstructs or controls that custody, is a virtual violation of the provisions of the act [the Revenue Collection Act of 1799]."”
2 later decisions 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.