Barron v. Burnside’s Empirical Analysis
121 U.S. 186 · 1887
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 22 district · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 195 later decisions (31 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Goldey v. Morning News (1895), Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission (1926)
33 federal appellate · 22 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Munn v. Illinois · Clark v. Barnard · Paul v. Virginia · Bank of Augusta v. Earle · St. Clair v. Cox
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 195 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As the Iowa statute makes the right to a permit dependent upon the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured to it by the Constitution and laws of the United States, the statute requiring the permit must be held to be void. * * * In all the cases in which this court has considered the subject of the granting by a state to a foreign corporation of its consent to the transaction of business in the state, it has uniformly asserted that no conditions can be imposed by the state which are repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As the Iowa statute makes the right to a permit dependent on the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured to it by the constitution and laws of the United States, the statute requiring the permit must be held to be void.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The locomotive engineer is arrested for acting as such in the employment ■of the corporation, because it has refused.to stipulate that it will not remove into the federal court suits brought against it in the state court, as a condition of obtaining a permit, and consequently has not obtained such permit. •* * * As the-Iowa statute makes the right to a permit dependent upon the surrender by the foreign corporation of a privilege secured to it by the Constitution and laws of tlie United States, the statute requiring the permit must he held to be void.””
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.