In re Salomon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““(103) Green, and colored, molded or pressed, and flint, and lime glass bottles, holding more than one pint, and demijohns, and carboys (covered or uncovered), and other molded or pressed green and colored and flint or lime bottle glassware, not specially provided for in this act, one cent per pound. Green, and colored, molded or pressed, and flint, and lime glass bottles, and vials holding not more than one pint and not less than one-quarter of a pint, one and one-half cents per pound; if holding less than one-fourth of a pint, fifty cents per gross. “(104) All articles enumerated in the preceding paragraph, if filled, and not otherwise provided for in this act, and the contents are subject to an ad valorem rate of duty, or to a rate of duty based upon the value, the value of such bottles, vials, or other vessels shall be added to the value of the contents for the ascertainment of the dutiable value of the latter; but if filled, and not otherwise provided for in this act, and the contents are not subject to an ad valorem rate of duty, or to rate of duty based on the value, or are free of duty, such bottles, vials, or other vessels shall pay, in addition to the duty, if any, on their contents, the rates of duty prescribed in the preceding paragraph: provided, that no article manufactured from glass described in the preceding paragraph shall pay a less rate of duty than forty per centum ad valorem.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Hensel

2. ““Paraphrased to fit the facts of this case, paragraph 104 would read as follows: ‘Green,’ etc., ‘glass bottles, when filled with something that pays an ad valorem duty shall pay the same duty as the contents, the dutiable value being ascertained by adding the value of the contents to the value of the bottles: provided, that no glass bottlé shall pay less than forty per centum ad valorem.’ The appellants insist that their bottles should pay but 25 per centum because their blacking pays only at that rate. I do not so understand the law. Paragraph 103 describes well-known articles of glassware, apd, when they are empty, imposes a specific duty upon them. Paragraph 104 deals with the same articles when filled. It is manifest that, if filled with some substance paying a low rate of duty ad valorem, the bottles described in 103 would come in under the same low rate. Designing men could thus evade the provisions of the law. To guard against this contingency, congress inserted the proviso, intended to prevent importers from avoiding the payment of duties which should approximate those of 103 by filling the bottles and importing them under 104. It is as if the proviso read: ‘Provided, that no articles described in paragraph 103 shall, under the provisions of 104, avoid the payment: of adequate duties, for all such articles when assessed with an ad valorem duty shall pay at least forty per1 centum.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Hensel