Talk:Nix v. Hedden

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Peer review Nix v. Hedden has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

Just occured to me: what laws were applied here? I'm not sure! - Ta bu shi da yu 03:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely the tariff law that the importer was trying to avoid, no? This link is Broken 15:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
From a quick look a the cases cited, I believe it was the Tariff Act, 1883, (March 3, 1883, 22 Stat. 488, 189, c. 121), which apparently imposed a 10% ad valorem customs duty on vegetables but not fruits. But you will need to check :)
It would also be helpful to add some discussion of the previous cases mentioned in the full judgement, regarding walnuts as nuts not seeds and beans as vegetables not seeds. -- ALoan (Talk) 28 June 2005 14:47 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Possible addition

There's a story that Reagan classified catsup/ketchup as a vegetable for purposes of school lunches. It may not be true, but it could definitely go in the article. This is the best source I could find on it, but I'm not sure it's credible. And as I said in the edit summary, since the "people have been enjoying tomatas since Dickens" quote is pretty irrelevant, I won't object if you want to take it out. Happy editing, Dave (talk) 15:56, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's true, I've heard of it myself, but it seems that that should go on the tomato page not here. This page isn't about the tomato-vegtable phenomenon (the tomato article has a section on that). This link is Broken 28 June 2005 15:16 (UTC)
Up to you. This article may want to point directly to that section. Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 16:48 (UTC)

[edit] other cases

SALTONSTALL v. WIEBUSCH & HILGER, 156 U.S. 601 (1895) noted Nix v. Hedden as a precedent for looking at dictionary definitions as opposed to technical ones:

There was no evidence in this case that the word 'forgings' was used in any commercial or technical sense among manufacturers, and, in the absence of such evidence, we are bound to presume that it was used in its ordinary and commonly accepted sense of metal shaped by heating and hammering. Swan v. Arthur, 103 U.S. 597 ; Maddock v. Magone, 152 U.S. 368 , 14 Sup. Ct. 588. Of this use of words the court takes judicial notice. Nix v. Hedden, 149 U.S. 304 , 13 Sup. Ct. 881.[1] (I'm User:Harry491, though I'm not signed in.)

[edit] Background/Actual Case

It would be nice to have more information about the case itself, and the background of the case before it starts discussing the tomato/vegitable thing. For example, there should be reference to specific prior Court decisions, specific laws at issue here, more info about who the different parties in the case were, and background as to why the case was started/why it made its way to the Supreme Court.

[edit] Question on origin of "nix"

This question was just left in the "Notes" section of the article; I've moved it here. Kickaha Ota 16:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this, but here goes: Could this be the etymology for the word "nix" as a verb? I.e., the Supreme Court nixed the case? 68.142.51.219 16:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Shanakay

Unlikely. Although the usage of nix as a verb meaning "to nullify" or "to erase" dates from around 1930, the word as a noun meaning "nothing" was used as early as the 1780s (OED).130.253.201.76 18:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)