Japan Import Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
86 F.2d 124 · 1936
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently November 1985
4 federal appellate · 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 19 U.S.C. § 121 · 19 U.S.C. § 122 · 19 U.S.C. § 1336 (Tariff Act of 1930) · 19 U.S.C. § 1402 · 19 U.S.C. § 154
Relies on Gibbons v. Ogden · Norwegian Nitrogen Products Co. v. United States · J. W. Hampton, Jr., & Co. v. United States · Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States · Buttfield v. Stranahan
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Export- Value For the purposes of this section, the export value of imported merchandise shall be the price, at the time of exportation to the United States of the merchandise undergoing' appraisement, at which such or similar merchandise is freely sold or, in the absence of sales, offered for sale in the principal markets of tlie country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States, plus, when not included in such price, the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“* * * The testimony shows that the imported shoes sold variously from 35 cents to 50 cents a pair at wholesale. The usual price for the domestic shoes, at the time of importation, was approximately 69 cents a pair wholesale. Some testimony was offered to the effect that the domestic product in some cases was of a better quality than the imported shoes; for instance, some of these domestic articles were said to have a cloth upper which permitted the passage of air, thus ventilating the shoe. The insoles were said to be closer fitting and the cross corrugations on the soles of better quality. It was also claimed that the soles of some of the domestic shoes were more flexible. The evidence, however, did show that the imported shoes and the domestic shoes were sold in the same establishments, to the same class of customers, and were adapted for the same uses and purposes. The witnesses differed to some degree as to whether they considered the imported and domestic shoes to be similar, some expressing the opinion definitely that they were similar for selling purposes, while others had the contrary opinion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * * 9ft * * If the commission finds it shown by the investigation that the duties expressly fixed by statute do not equalize the differences in the costs of production of the •domestic article and the like or similar foreign article when produced in the principal competing country, the commission shah specify in its report such increases or decreases in rates of duty expressly fixed by statute (including any ■necessary change in classification) as it finds shown by the investigation to be ■necessary to equalize such differences.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.