Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 54 F.1d 676 - In re Cruikshank

In re Cruikshank’s Empirical Analysis

54 F. 676 · 1893

Citation profile

2
cited by 2 later decisions
January 1894
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

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. ““Drugs, such as barks, beans, berries, balsams, buds, bulbs and bulbous roots, excrescences such as nut galls, fruits, flowers, dried libers and dried insects, gums, grains and gum resin, herbs, leaves, lichens, mosses, nuts, roots and stems, spices, vegetables, seeds aromatic and seeds of morbid growth, weeds, and woods used expressly for dyeing; any of the foregoing which are not edible and are in a crude state, and not advanced in value or condition by refining or grinding, or by other process of manufacture, and not specially provided for in this act.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Spices, ground or powdered, not specially provided for in this act, four cents per pound; Cayenne pepper, two and one-half cents per pound, unground; sage, three cents per pound.””
    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.