Kreutz v. Durning’s Empirical Analysis
69 F.2d 802 · 1934
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 1501 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1515 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 160 · 23 U.S.C. § 308
Relies on Crowell v. Benson · John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al. · Ex parte Bakelite Corp. · William Cary and Samuel Cary v. Edward Curtis · Auffmordt v. Hedden
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We recognize, of course, that neither the Customs Court nor the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals appears to have the equity powers of a district court. * * * Thus in import duty matters, if the jurisdiction of the Customs Court and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals is exclusive, there may be no way to obtain the equitable relief in situations of extreme hardship which the Supreme Court lias occasionally permitted in internal revenue cases despite the statute flatly prohibiting injunctions in tax matters. * * * Since the threat of imposition of the dumping duty is alleged by the complaint to have forced plaintiffs out of the business of importing the type of pipe involved, the case might — ■ as an original proposition- — fall within the exceptions the Supreme Court has carved in this statute, even though (as we have noted) plaintiffs would not have to pay the additional duty until they had exhausted their remedy in the Customs Court and in the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. But we think it is too clearly established that those courts provide -an adequate and exclusive remedy in this sort of case for us to make an exception here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Finally, we can see no grievance in the supposed retroactive feature of the act. It is quite true that an importer brings goods into the United States at his peril, that it may be found that he has been ‘dumping’; and that that decision will follow the importation. All decisions in that sense are retroactive; but the constitutive factors on which the duty is reckoned are expressly referred to the time of exportation. That the importer may not know whether the Secretary will discover them, or choose to act upon them is nothing; he obviously takes his chances.” 69 F.2d at 804 .”
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.