Van Brocklin v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
117 U.S. 151 · 1886
Citation profile
94 federal appellate · 46 district · 128 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 502 later decisions (92 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2020 · most notably Will v. Michigan Department of State Police (1989), Quern v. Jordan (1979)
94 federal appellate · 46 district · 128 state decisions — followed in 33 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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Coe v. Town of Errol · Fort Leavenworth Co v. Lowe · Kohl v. United States
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 502 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'General tax acts of a state are never, without the clearest words, held to include its own property, or that of its municipal corporations, although not in terms exempted from taxation. * * *”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The United States do not and cannot hold property, as a monarch may, for private or personal purposes. All the property and revenues of the United States must be held and applied ... ‘to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.’ ” [117 U.S. at pages 158-159, 6 S.Ct. at page 674]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““While the United States owned the land struck off to them for the amount of the taxes because no one would pay more for it, and until it was sold by the United States for a greater price, or was redeemed by the former owner, the United States held the entire title as security for the payment of the taxes; and it could not be known how much, if anything, beyond the amount of the taxes the land was worth. To allow land, lawfully held by the United States as security for the payment of taxes assessed by and due to them, to be assessed and sold for State taxes, would tend to create a conflict between the officers of the two governments, to deprive the United States of a title lawfully acquired under express acts of Congress, and to defeat the exercise of the constitutional power to lay and collect taxes, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. “The question whether the taxes laid under authority of the State can be collected in this suit depends upon the question whether they were lawfully assessed. But all the assessments were unlawful, because made while the land was owned by the United States. The assessments, being unlawful, created no lien upon the land. Those taxes, therefore, cannot be collected, even since the plaintiffs in error have redeemed or purchased the land from the United States. “Whether the Supreme Court of Tennessee rightly construed the provisions of the Constitution and statutes of the State as not exemp”
2 later decisions 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.