Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 121 U.S. 138 - Mercantile Nat Bank of New York v. Mayor Etc of New York

Mercantile Nat Bank of New York v. Mayor Etc of New York’s Empirical Analysis

121 U.S. 138 · 1887

Citation profile

327
cited by 327 later decisions
49
cited 49 times by the Supreme Court
32
states following
December 2005
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 19 district · 141 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 327 later decisions (49 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2005 · most notably Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911), Graves v. People of State of New York O'Keefe (1939)

32 federal appellate · 19 district · 141 state decisions — followed in 32 states

7601887189019001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Cummings v. National Bank · Farrington v. Tennessee · Van Allen v. The Assessors · Supervisors v. Stanley

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

  1. “‘ ‘ The key to the proper interpretation of the act of Congress is its policy and purpose. The object of the law Avas to establish a system of national banking institutions, in order to provide a uniform and secure currency for the people, and to facilitate the operations of the treasury of the United States. The capital of each of the banks in this system was to be furnished entirely by private individuals; but, for. the protection of the government and the people, it Avas required that this capital, so far as it Avas the security for its circulating notes, should be invested in the bonds of the United States. These bonds were not subjects of taxation; and neither the banks themselves nor their capital, hoAvever invested, nor the shares of stock therein held by individuals, could be taxed by the states in Avliich they Avere located, Avithout the consent of Congress, being exempted from the power of the states in this respect because these banks were means and agencies established by Congress in execution of the powers of the government of the United States. It was deemed consistent, hoAvever, Avith these national uses, and otheiuvise expedient, to grant to the states the authority to tax them, AAdthin the limits of a rule prescribed by the law. In fixing those limits it became necessary to prohibit the states from imposing such a burden as would prevent the capital of individuals from freely seeking investment in institutions which it was the express object of the law to est”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Nothing herein shall prevent ■ all the shares in any association from being included in the valuation of the personal property of the owner or holder of such shares, in assessing taxes imposed by authority of the state within which the association is located; but the legislature of each state may determine and direct the manner and place of taxing all the shares of national banking associations located within the state, subject only to the two restrictions, that the taxation shall not bo at a greater rate than is assessed upon other moneyed capital in the hands of individual citizens of such state, and that the shares of any national banking association owned by nonresidents of any state shall be taxed in the city or town where the bank is located, and not elsewhere. Nothing herein shall be construed to exempt the real property of associations from either state, county, or municipal taxes, to the same extent, according to its value, as other real property is taxed.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Bonds issued by the State of New York, or under its authority by its public municipal bodies, are means for carrying on the work of the government, and are not taxable even by the United States', and it is not a part of the policy'of the government which issues them to subject them to taxation for its .own purposes.”
    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.