United States v. Cannelton Sewer Pipe Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

208 federal appellate · 6 district · 5 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 361 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Ever since the first percentage depletion statute, the cutoff point where ‘gross income from mining’ stopped has been the same, i. e., where the ordinary miner shipped the product of his mine. Respondent’s formula [that the first commercially marketable mineral product is sewer pipe and other vitrified articles was the first commercially marketable mineral product at which fire clay and shale could profitably be sold] would not only give it a preference over the ordinary nonintegrated miner, but also would grant it a decided competitive advantage over its nonintegrated manufacturer competitor. Congress never intended that depletion create such a discriminatory situation. As we see it, the miner-manufacturer is but selling to himself the crude mineral that he mines, insofar as the depletion allowance is concerned. * *’ * * * * Depletion, as we read the legislative history, was designed not to recompense for costs of recovery but for exhaustion of mineral assets alone. If it were extended as respondent asks, the miner-manufacturer would enjoy, in addition, to a depletion allowance on his minerals, a similar allowance on his manufacturing costs, including depreciation on his manufacturing plant, machinery and facilities. * * * * * * In view of the finding that substantial quantities — in fact, the majority — of the tonnage production of fire clay and shale were sold in their raw state, we believe that respondent’s mining activity during the year in question would come under cla”

   11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Portland Cement Company of Utah · Riddell v. Monolith Portland Cement Co.

2. “Congress intended to grant miners a depletion allowance based on the constructive income from the raw mineral product * * *”

   10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 194 F. Supp. 309 - Great Bend Brick & Tele Co. v. United States · Shell Oil Co. v. Commissioner

3. “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 * * *.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Estate of Bryan v. Commissioner · Melrose Granite Co. v. Commissioner