Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 U.S. 472 - Meriwether v. Garrett

Meriwether v. Garrett’s Empirical Analysis

102 U.S. 472 · 1880

Citation profile

431
cited by 431 later decisions
50
cited 50 times by the Supreme Court
43
states following
October 2014
most recently cited

72 federal appellate · 15 district · 196 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 431 later decisions (50 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2014 · most notably Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York (1978), United States v. Anderson (1926)

72 federal appellate · 15 district · 196 state decisions — followed in 43 states

76018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy · Dollar Savings Bank v. United States · Rees v. City of Watertown · United States v. Railroad Co.

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 431 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Having tlio sole power to authorize the tax, it must equally possess the sole power to prescribe the means by which the tax shall be collected and to designate the officers through whom its will shall be enforced. ⅞ ⅜ * Tn the distribution oí the jiowers o£ government in this country into three departments, the power of taxation falls to the legislative.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““ 3. The power of taxation is legislative and cannot be exercised otherwise than under the authority of the legislature.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““In its streets, wharves, cemeteries, hospitals, courthouses, and other public buildings, the corporation' has no proprietary rights distinct from the trust for the public. It holds them for public use, and to no other use can they bo appropriated without special legislative sanction. It would be a perversion of that trust to apply them to other uses. The courts can have nothing to do with them, unless appealed to on behalf of the public to prevent their diversion from the public use.””
    2 later decisions 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.