Talk:Nix v. Hedden

old comments

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)

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)

The USDA ruled that ketchup could be used in school lunches as a vegetable. However Jeffrey Steingarten points out in his book The Man Who Ate Everything that a 4 Tbs serving of ketchup is nutritionally equivalent to an entire medium tomato.Barnaby the Scrivener (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Up to you. This article may want to point directly to that section. Dave (talk) June 28, 2005 16:48 (UTC)

Other botanical fruits but considered vegetables: peppers, beans, avocados, cucumbers, nuts! SharonYubinKang (talk) 19:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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.)

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.

There was Tariff Act in 1883, and tomato growers thought that tomatoes should be taxed as a vegetable because of its purposes. Supreme Court brought in consumers as witnesses, in which they attested that they use tomatoes as more of a vegetable rather than a fruit. (Uses of main course, rather than dessert. SharonYubinKang (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

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)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nix v. Hedden/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Lead section. Footnote number should be after the comma: see WP:CITE.

   The case. Use double instead of single quotation marks to enclose word like "fruit" and "vegetables" (except if the single quotations were used in direct quotations): see WP:MOS#Quotation characters. Block quotes do not need to be enclosed in quotation marks: see WP:MOS#Block quotations.

   The Court's decision. Remove the quotation marks from the block quote. Remove the external link from the page number "42". For consistency, remove the spaces around the em dash.

   Subsequent history. Remove the quotation marks from the block quote. Suggest you put a space between "F." and "2d" in the citation. Footnote 2 should end with a period.

   External links. How similar is Rocknel Fastener, inc v. United States to this case? Is it really relevant enough to be mentioned?

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   • The article currently lacks sufficient inline citations. At the very least, each paragraph should have a footnote at the end of it to indicate the source of the information. This is particularly important for direct quotations. If you are citing from the report of the case, indicate the page numbers of the case where the information and quotations were obtained from.
   • A book entitled Legal Ramblings is indicated in the "References" section, but there are no inline citations to it in the main body of the article.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   • I think a bit more background information about the case is required. The section entitled "The case" jumps straight into a discussion of the parties' arguments as to whether the tomato should be regarded as a fruit or a vegetable. I think the article should say something about why this issue arose in the context of the Tariff Act 1883.
   • Similarly, in the section entitled "The Court's decision", the implications of the Court's conclusions about the tomato being a vegetable on the Tariff Act issue to be set out. The case was not brought by the plaintiffs simply because they were interested to know whether the tomato was a fruit or vegetable, but because it had some significance in relation to the Act. This should be explained.
   • Please elaborate on how the case was a "precedent for court interpretation of common meanings, especially dictionary definitions".
   • "In 2005, supporters in the New Jersey legislature cited Nix as a basis for a bill designating the tomato as the official state vegetable." This sounds interesting; can more details be provided?

   B. Focused:

   • The sentence "Justice Gray ... stated that when words have acquired any special meaning in trade or commerce the ordinary meaning must be used by the court" is puzzling to me, and I think it requires a bit more explanation. If certain words have acquired a special meaning in trade or commerce, why must the court ignore that special meaning and give the words an ordinary meaning instead?
   • "In this case dictionaries cannot be admitted as evidence, but only as aids to the memory and understanding of the court." Explain why this is the case. Is this a principle limited to the facts of the case? If so, why?
4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Apart from the above, the article is generally well written. I will put the GA review on hold so that you can improve the article. This page is on my watchlist, so leave any questions you have for me here, as well as a notification when you have finished working on the article. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

   I'm afraid I'm going to have to fail this article. Two weeks have passed, but no one has revised the article. Any editor interested in trying to take this article to GA status again is welcome to make the changes suggested above, relist the article at "Wikipedia:Good article candidates", and contact me for a further review. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 18:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nix v. Hedden. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.justia.us/us/91/42/case.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060404112435/http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op00/00-112.pdf to http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op00/00-112.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a landmark decision

96.64.220.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has readded an unsourced claim that Nix v. Hedden is a landmark Supreme Court case. This case, in it's 100 year history, has been cited in only 4 Supreme Court opinions, the most recent being 1895 according to LexisNexis. Compare this to [[ List of landmark court decisions in the United States|actual landmark decisions]], Loving v. Virginia (1967) in it's 50 year history has been cited in 91 Supreme Court opinions (most recently in 2015), Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) is older than Nix by 13 years and has been cited in 99 Supreme Court opinions (most recently in 2017), even a landmark decision from 1796 also interpreting tax law, Hylton v. United States, has been cited in 23 Supreme Court opinions (the most recent being 2012). This case was barely influential in the late 1800s and hasn't been influential since. Any claim that this case is a landmark decision is completely unfounded and requires a source other than claims of being a law student. As such I have removed this claim again. Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)