Moran v. City of New Orleans’s Empirical Analysis
112 U.S. 69 · 1884
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2000 · most notably Huron Portland Cement Company v. City of Detroit Michigan (1960), Sperry v. State of Florida the Florida Bar (1963)
6 federal appellate · 4 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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 Gibbons v. Ogden · Brown v. Maryland · Samuel Thurlow v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Case of the State Freight Tax Reading Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania · Railroad Company v. Peniston
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is a charge explicitly made as the price of’ the privilege of navigating the Mississippi River, between New Orleans and the Gulf, in the coastwise trade, as the condition on 'which the State of Louisiana consents that the boats of the plaintiff in error may be employed by him according to the terms of the'license granted. under the authority of Congress. The sole occupation sought to be. subjected to the tax is that of using and enjoying the license of the United States to employ these particular vessels in the coasting trade; and the State thus seeks to burden with an exaction, fixed at its own. pleasure, the very right to "which the plaintiff in error is entitled under, and which he derives from, the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Louisiana statute declares expressly that if he refuses or neglects to pay the license tax imposed .upon him for using his boats in this way, he shall not be permitted to act under and avail himself of the license granted by the. United States, but may be enjoined from so doing by judicial process. The' conflict between the two authorities is direct and express. What the' one declares may be done without the tax, the other declares shall not be done except upon payment of the tax. In such an opposition, the only question is, which is the superior authority ? and reduced to that, it furnishes its own' answer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harman v. Chicago““And it is undoubtedly true, as it has often been judicially declared, that vessels engaged in foreign or interstate commerce, and duly enrolled and licensed under the acts of congress, may be taxed by state authority as property; provided Hie tax be'not a tonnage duly, is levied only at the port of registry, and is valued as other property in the state, without unfavorable discrimination on account of its employment. Transportation Co. v. Wheeling, 99 U. S. 273 , 25 L. Ed. 412 ; Morgan v. Parham, 16 Wall. 471 , 21 L. Ed. 303 ; Hays v. Steamship Co., 17 How. 596 , 15 L. Ed. 254 ; Wiggins Ferry Co. v. City of East St. Louis, 107 U. S. 365 , 2 Sup. Ct. 257 , 27 L. Ed. 419 .””
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.