Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 81 U.S. 44 - Henderson's Distilled Spirits

Henderson's Distilled Spirits’s Empirical Analysis

81 U.S. 44 · 1871

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
May 2011
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 19 district · 25 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2011 · most notably United States v. Stowell (1890), J. W. Goldsmith, Jr.-Grant Co. v. United States (1921)

44 federal appellate · 19 district · 25 state decisions

210187118801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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. 1960 Bags of Coffee · Lindsey v. Hawes · Hurley v. Street

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

  1. ““Where the forfeiture is made absolute by statute the decree of condemnation when entered relates back to the time of the commission of the wrongful acts, and takes date from the wrongful acts and not from the date of the sentence or decree. * * * Many such adjudged eases are to be found in the reported decisions of this court, and it must be admitted that they establish the rule beyond all doubt, that the forfeiture becomes absolute at the commission of the prohibited acts, and that the title from that moment vests in the United States in all cases where the statute in terms denounces the forfeiture of the property as a penalty for a violation of law, without giving any alternative remedy, or prescribing any substitute for the forfeiture, or allowing any exceptions to its enforcement, or employing in the enactment any language showing a different intent; and that in all such cases it is not in the power of the offender or former owner to defeat the forfeiture by any subsequent transfer of the property, even to a bona fide purchaser for value, without notice of the wrongful acts done and committed by the former owner.” (Emphasis added.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Whenever any goods or commodities for or in respect whereof any tax is or shall be imposed, . . . are removed, or are deposited or concealed in any place, with intent to defraud the United States of such tax, or any part thereof, all such goods and commodities, . . . shall be forfeited; and in every such case all the casks, vessels, cases, or other packages whatsoever, containing, or which shall have contained, such goods or commodities, respectively, and every vessel, boat, cart, carriage, or other conveyance whatsoever, and all horses or other animals, and all things used in the removal or for the deposit or concealment thereof, respectively, shall be forfeited.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “[T]he decree of condemnation when entered relates back to the time of the commission of the wrongful acts, and takes date from the wrongful acts and not from the date of the sentence or decree.”
    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.