Afram Bros. 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Obviously, Congress bas provided for two kinds of aluminum scrap. In paragraph 374, as modified, supra, aluminum scrap i's enumerated and made dutiable at 1% cents per pound. As a matter of fact, the collector classified the importation as ‘Aluminum Ingots scrap” and imposed duty at 1% cents per pound, which is the rate provided by paragraph 374, as modified. There is a presumption that the collector found all the facts necessary to support his decision, and his classification and assessment of duty at 1% cents per pound indicate that he was of the opinion that the scrap in controversy was not of the kind described in section 1(b) of Public Law 869, which is granted freedom of duty.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Allots & Chemicals Co. v. United States

2. “Seo. 1. (a) No duties or import taxes shall be levied, collected, or payable under the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, or under section 3425 of the Internal Kevenue Code with respect to metal scrap, or relaying and rerolling rails. (b) The word “scrap”, as used in this Act, shall mean all ferrous and nonferrous materials and articles, of which ferrous or nonferrous metal is the component material of chief value, which are second-hand or waste or refuse, or are obsolete, defective or damaged, and which are fit only to be remanufactured.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Alloys & Chemicals Co. v. United States

3. “* * * A material to be remanufactured must necessarily have previously been manufactured. As used in this section an article which is to be remanufactured does not encompass intermediate forms assumed during processes of manufacture, but rather embraces articles manufactured for a particular end use and subsequently imported into this country to be melted and remanufac-tured into other articles. * * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. J. E. Bernard & Co. v. United States