Peisch v. Ware’s Empirical Analysis
8 U.S. 347 · 1808
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 16 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2024 · most notably Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co. (1974), Austin v. United States (1993)
19 federal appellate · 16 district · 13 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
Relies on Chappedelaine v. Dechenaux · Priestman,, v. The United States · Succession of Wedderburn · Flanagan v. Demarest
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The court is also of opinion, that the removal for which the act punishes the owner with a forfeiture of the goods nvust he made with his consent or connivance, or with that of some person employed or trusted by him. If, by private theft, or open robbery, without any fault on his part, his property should be invaded, while in the custody of the officer of the revenue, the law cannot be understood to punish him with the forfeiture of that property. In the 52d section, therefore, to which the revenue officers seem to have intended to conform, so far as the case would admit, which directs them in the case of an incomplete entry to store the goods at the risk and expense of the owner or consignee, no forfeiture is annexed to their removal, unless the penalties of the 51st section, or of the 43d section, be applied to the 52d. “The court is of opinion that those penalties cannot be so applied in this case, not only because, from the whole tenor of the law, its provisions appear not to be adapted to goods saved from a vessel under the circumstances in which the Favour-ite was found, but because, also the law is not understood to forfeit the property of owners or consignees, on account of the misconduct of mere strangers, over whom such owners or consignees could have no control.” [Emphasis added.]”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a forfeiture can only be applied to those cases in which the means that are prescribed for the prevention of a forfeiture may be employed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the conduct of the salvors in taking the goods out of the possession of the revenue officers, though by legal process, was improper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Slocum v. Mayberry
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.