Arthur v. Sussfield’s Empirical Analysis
96 U.S. 128 · 1877
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1958 · most notably Arthur's Executors v. Butterfield (1888), Mason v. Robertson (1891)
3 federal appellate ·
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.
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We are not able to assent to this course of reasoning. The similitude act applies only to non-enumerated articles. These goods are enumerated. They fall under the description or enumeration of both sections, and, if. either were absent , the description under the other would be sufficient. Tims, if it were not for that provision of the act describing ‘ manufactures of which steel is a component part,’ there could be no difficulty in classifying them under that clause which describes ‘manufactures of which glass shall be a component material, ’ and, if it were not for the provision describing ‘ manufactures of which glass shall be a component material,’ there could be no difficulty in classifying them under that clause which describes ‘ manufactures of which steel is a component part. ’ ””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“pebbles for spectacles and all manufactures of glass, or of which glass shall be a component material.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“manufactures of steel, or of which steel shall be a component part.”
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.