Riddell v. Monolith Portland Cement Co.’s Empirical Analysis
301 F.2d 488 · 1962
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on James v. United States · Rutkin v. United States · Citizens Bank & Trust Co. v. United States · Commissioner v. Wilcox · United States v. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Co.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“As used in this paragraph the term `gross income from the property' means the gross income from mining. The term `mining' as used herein shall be considered to include not merely the extraction of the ores or minerals from the ground but also the ordinary treatment processes normally applied by mine owners or operators in order to obtain the commercially marketable mineral product or products, and so much of the transportation * * *. The term `ordinary treatment processes', as used herein, shall include the following: * * * (iii) in the case of * * * minerals which are customarily sold in the form of a crude mineral product — sorting, concentrating, and sintering * * * and loading * * * (iv) in the case of * * * ores which are not customarily sold in the form of the crude mineral product — crushing, grinding * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]hough we might well agree with [them] * * * we too have preferred to go to the merits of the issues.”
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.