Block v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “The case is in all substantial respects analogous to that of United States v. Lueder (154 Fed. Rep., 1; T.D. 27918). This is not a ease in which there was room for the application of the rule giving force to commercial usage. This question was discussed in the Bartram case (131 Fed. Rep., 833), where a similar contention was made, but the contention was overruled on reasoning which commends itself to the court. See also Newman v. Arthur ( 109 U.S., 132 ) ; American Sugar Refining Co. v. United States ( 1 Ct. Cust. Appls., 228 ; T.D. 31273). In Newman v. Arthur, 109 U.S. 132 , 27 L. ed. 883, the question was presented whether the thread count in certain woven fabrics should be ascertained according to commercial usage or by actual count. The court rejected the commercial usage count and accepted the actual count. We quote the following from that decision: It is sought to support this argument by invoking the rule of construing the statute, applied in Arthur v. Morrison, 96 U.S. 108 [XXIV., 764], and the numerous cases there cited, that where words are used in an Act imposing duties upon imports which have acquired, by commercial use, a meaning different from their ordinary meaning, the latter may be controlled by the former if such be the apparent intent of the statute; but the application fails in the present instance because the language used is unequivocal. There is no reference in the statute, either expressly or by implication, to any commercial usage, and there is no lan”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. A.W. Fenton Co. v. United States

2. “There is little, if any, dispute between the parties regarding the facts in this case, and the record fully justifies a holding that in trade and commerce, in dealing with such or similar merchandise, a trade tolerance or allowance is always expected and made between the buyer and seller and that this has been trae for a long period of time. If this trade tolerance or allowance be accepted in this case, the plaintiff is entitled to prevail. It is our view that the language of said paragraph 1301 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as modified, supra, is clear, plain, and unambiguous and that there is little, if any, room for construction. The line of demarcation is between yarns of rayon, weighing 150 deniers or more per length of 450 meters, and yarns of rayon, weighing less than 150 deniers per length of 450 meters. This is not a case in which there is room for the application of the rule giving force to commercial usage. Had it been the intention of the trade negotiators to make this merchandise dutiable according to the rule of commercial usage, it would have been an easy matter for them to have so stated. This they did not do.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. L. E. Coppersmith, Inc. v. United States

3. “* * * The total net weight in pounds constitutes the dutiable weight. Such dutiable weight is the actual weight irrespective of any possible trade custom. See United States v. Nash, 27 Fed. Cases 75, and In re Downing, T.D. 14624, G.A. 2382, where the court held that the actual weight and not an arbitrary weight adopted by trade must be taken. * * »”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. A.W. Fenton Co. v. United States