Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby Co Tennessee’s Empirical Analysis
120 U.S. 489 · 1887
Citation profile
61 federal appellate · 60 district · 382 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 972 later decisions (189 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2010 · most notably Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States (1911), Swift Company v. United States (1905)
61 federal appellate · 60 district · 382 state decisions — followed in 46 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 · Aaron Cooley v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia to the Use of the Society for the Relief of Distressed Pilots Their Widows and Children Same · Welton v. The State of Missouri
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 972 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The negotiation of sales of goods which are in another state, for the purpose of introducing them into the state in which the negotiation is made, is interstate commerce.””
30 later decisions quote this exact passage““All drummers and all persons not having a regularly licensed house of business in the taxing district of Shelby county, offering for sale or selling goods, wares, or merchandise therein by sample, shall be required to pay to the county trustee, the sum of $10 per week, or $25 per month for such privilege.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Fargo v. Michigan · State v. Glasby““The Constitution of the United States having given to Congress the power to regulate commerce, not only with foreign nations, but among the several states, that power is necessarily exclusive whenever the subjects of it are national in their character, or admit only of one uniform system or plan of regulation ; that, where the power of Congress to regulate is exclusive, the failure of Congress to make express regulations indicates its will that the subject shall be left free from any restrictions or impositions, and any regulation of the subject by states, except in matters of local concern only, is repugnant to such freedom; that the only way in which commerce between the states can bo legitimately affected by state laws is when, by virtue of its police power, and its jurisdiction over persons and property within its limits, a state provides for the security of the lives, health and comfort of persons and the protection of property, and imposes taxes upon persons residing within the state or belonging to its population, and upon vocations and employments pursued therein, not directly connected with foreign or interstate commerce, or with some other employment or business exercised under authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States, and imposes taxes upon ail property within the state, mingled with and forming part of the great mass of property therein, hut that, in making such internal regulations, a state cannot impose taxes upon persons passing through the ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ex parte Hull
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.