In re Orion Co.’s Empirical Analysis
71 F.2d 458 · 1934
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently November 2015
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 45 (§ 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914) · 19 U.S.C. § 1303 · 19 U.S.C. § 1311 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1337 (Tariff Act of 1930)
Relies on J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States · United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co. · John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al. · Buttfield v. Stranahan · Federal Trade Commission v. Raladam Co.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“After the goods have been so released into the commerce of the country, the American manufacturer may assert his rights against anyone who has possession of, or sells, the goods. However, this method of control must be, and is, ineffective, because of the multiplicity of suits which must necessarily be instituted to enforce the rights of the domestic manufacturer. This phase of the matter obviously was in the minds of the Congress at the time of the preparation of said section 337.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“So long as such regulation was within constitutional limitations, as we have seen it was, the wisdom of the methods provided by the Congress is a political, not a judicial, question. The importer has no right to complain as to the operation of the machinery, for the act of importation, even to our citizens, is not a vested right, but an act of grace. Buttfield v. Stranahan, 192 US 470 (1904).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The jurisdiction of district courts and the scope of any decree issued by them do not extend to the importation or exclusion of imported merchandise from entry into the United States. Section 316, therefore, as construed by the Tariff Commission on its findings now before the Court of Customs Appeals for review, affords an exclusive remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.