Davies v. Arthur’s Empirical Analysis
96 U.S. 148 · 1877
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2015 · most notably Jarvis Clark Co. v. United States (1984), Mattel, Inc. v. United States (1974)
14 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 William Cary and Samuel Cary v. Edward Curtis · Curtis's Administratrix v. Fiedler
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Protests of the kind must contain a distinct and clear specification of each substantive ground of objection to the payment of the duties. Technical precision is not required; but the objection must be so distinct and specific, as, when fairly construed, to show that the objection taken at the trial was at the time in the mind of the importer, and that it was sufficient to notify the collector of its true nature and character, to the end that he might ascertain the precise facts, and have an opportunity to correct the mistake and cure the defect, if it was one which could be obviated.””
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The solicitor general concedes that the objection to the protest is a ‘hare technicality,’ and that its nature could hardly mislead the officers.” “The protest must set forth ‘distinctly and specifically’ the grounds of objection to the decision of the collector as to the rate and amount of duties.” “A protest ⅛ not required to he made with technical precision, hut is sufficient if it shows fairly that the objection afterwards made at the trial was in the mind of the party, and was brought to the knowledge of the collector, so as to secure to the government the practical advantage which the statute was designed to secure.” <”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Persons importing merchandise are required to make their protests distinct and specific, in order to apprise the collector of the nature of the objection, before it is too late to remove it, or to modify the exaction, and that tlie proper officers of the Treasury may know what they have to meet, in case they decide to exact the duties as intimated, Notwithstanding the objection, and to expose the United States to the risk of litigation.” Cur tis's Administratrix v. Fiedler, 2 Black, 461 .”
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.