Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 57 U.S. 150 - John Stuart Joseph Stuart James Stuart and William Scott v. Hugh Maxwell

John Stuart Joseph Stuart James Stuart and William Scott v. Hugh Maxwell’s Empirical Analysis

57 U.S. 150 · 1853

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
December 1968
most recently cited

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 1968 · most notably Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. (1895), Arthur v. Lahey (1877)

70185318601870188018901900191019201930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on United States v. Palmer · Nelson Elliott v. Samuel Swartwout · Bruckner's lessee v. Lawrence · Adam Mills v. The County of St. Clair and James Harrison · Edward Curtis v. William Martin

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

  1. ““ By providing for the principal thing, it has provided for all other things which the law declares to be the same. It is only upon this' ground that sheer and manifest evasions can be reached. Suppose an article is designed to serye the uses and take the place of some article described, but some trifling or' colorable change is made in the fabric or some of its incidents. It is new in the market. No man can say he has ever-seen it before, 6r knows it under- any commercial name. But it is substantially like a knówn article which is provided for. The law of 1E)42 [Rev. Stat. sec. 2499], then declares that it is tobe deemed the same, and to be charged ae-. cordingly ; that the act of 1846 (the tariff act then in force) has provided for it under the name it resembles.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Rev, Stats., Sec. 2504, ScheU. A. ‡ ‡ ‡ “ Cotton braids, insertings, lace, trimming, or bobbinet, and all other manufactures of cotton, not otherwise provided for, thirty-five per centum ad valorem. “ Sched. L. * * , * * * # “Flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit goods, balmorals,.woolen and worsted yarns, and all manufactures of every' description composed wholly or. in part of worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat or other, like animals, except such as are composed in part of wool, not otherwise provided for, valued at not exceeding' forty cents per pound, twenty cents per pound ; valued at above forty cents per pound and not exceeding sixty cents per pound, thirty cents per pound ; valued at above sixty'cents per pound and not exceeding eighty cents per pound, forty cents per pound ; valued at above eighty cents per pound, fifty cents per pound; and, in addition thereto, upon all the above-named articles, thirty-five per .centum ad valorem. “Sec. 2499. There shall be levied, collected and paid on each and every non-enumerated article which bears a similitude, either in material, quality, texture, or the use to which it may be applied, to any article enumerated in this title, as chargeable with duty, the same rate of duty which is levied and charged on the enumerated article which it most resembles in any of the particulars before mentioned ; “ And if any non-enumerated article equally resembles two or •more enumerated articles, on which different rates of duty are chargea”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““ It was designed to afford rules to guide those employed in. the collection of revenue in certaiñ cases likely to occur, not within the letter, but within the real intent and meaning of the laws imposing duties, and thus to prevent evasions of those laws.. Manufaeturing ingenuity and skill have become very great, and diversities may be expected to be made in fabrics adapted' to the same rules and designed to take the same places as those specifically described by some distinctive marks, for the mere purpose of escaping from the duty imposed thereon. And it would probably be impossible for Congress, by legislation, to keep pace with the results of these efforts of interested ingenuity. To obviate, in part at least, the necessity of attempting to do so, this section was enacted.””
    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.