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. (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)

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 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.

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

Not a landmark decision
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 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 [thɔk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɻɪbz] 03:22, 17 April 2018 (UTC)