James Converse v. Benjamin Burgess’s Empirical Analysis
59 U.S. 413 · 1855
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2006 · most notably Glidden Company v. Zdanok Lurk (1962), Arthur v. Morgan (1884)
4 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Philip Greely Junior v. William Thompson
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We are not, therefore, disposed to exact any nice precision, nor to apply any strict rule of construction upon the notices required under this statute. Tt is sufficient if the importer indicates distinctly and definitely the source of his complaint and his design to make it the foundation of a claim against the Government.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“These acts of Congress provide for the appointment, regulate the duties, and impose the limitations on the authority of the appraisers, and determine the conditions on which the validity of their assessment depends. All their powers are derived from these acts, and it is their duty to observe the restrictions and to obey the directions they contain. In the present instance, there was a neglect of the positive mandate `to open, examine and appraise one package of every invoice, and one package at least of every ten packages of goods, wares and merchandise;' and the jury have found that the inquiry they made was not, in substance nor in effect, an equivalent for such an examination. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the importer was not precluded by their return from disputing the sufficiency or accuracy of their assessment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“familiar with the character and value of the goods in question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Auffmordt v. Hedden
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.