Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 U.S. 322 - Evansville Bank v. Britton

Evansville Bank v. Britton’s Empirical Analysis

105 U.S. 322 · 1881

Citation profile

68
cited by 68 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
December 2005
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 68 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2005 · most notably Eisner v. Macomber (1920), Mercantile Nat Bank of New York v. Mayor Etc of New York (1887)

6 federal appellate · 4 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 18 states

1701881189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Van Allen v. The Assessors · People v. Weaver · Hepburn v. The School Directors

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

  1. ““The act of congress does not make the tax on personal property the measure of-the tax on bank-shares in the state, but the tax on moneyed capital in the hands of the individual citizens. Credits, money loaned at interest, and demands against persons or corporations are more purely representative of moneyed capital than personal property, so far as they can be said to differ. ””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ A distinction is attempted to be drawn between the Indiana statute and the New York statute, because the former permitted the deduction of the taxpayer’s indebtedness to be made from the valuation of his personal property, while in Indiana he can only deduct it from his credits; and, undoubtedly, there is such a difference in the laws of the two states. But if one of them is more directly in conflict with the act of congress than the other, it is the Indiana statute. . . . “ It is unnecessary to repeat the argument in People v. Weaver ( 100 U. S. 539 ), on this point. We are of opinion that the taxation of bank shares by the Indiana statute, without permitting the shareholder to deduct from their assessed value the amount of his bona fide indebtedness, as in the case of other investments of moneyed capital, is a discrimination forbidden by the act of congress.””
    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.