Darling v. Berry’s Empirical Analysis
13 F. 659 · 1882
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2001
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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.
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When a bankrupt, revenue, or naturalization law is made by its terms applicable alike to all the states of the Union, without distinction or discrimination, it cannot be successfully questioned on the ground that it is not uniform, in die sense of the Constitution, merely because its operation or working may he wholly different in one state from another. The circumstances and conditions existing in the suites of this Union are infinitely various. No law which human ingenuity could possibly frame would be uniform in the sense of operating equally or alike in the various states, witli their different, conditions and diversified interests. The Constitution provides that ‘ail duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.’ Now, suppose one or more states should succeed in suppressing utterly the manufacture and sale of ardent spirits and malt liquors, then a federal tax upon these commodities would ho entirely inoperative in such stales. iii such case millions might, be collected under an excise law in Illinois, and not a cent in Iowa. The operation of such a law would then he anything but uniform in the two states; but would any court for that reason declare a general law imposing a tax of the kind unconstitutional? Again, a tariff law might be anything' but uniform in its operation upon different states. It might foster the industry of a manufacturing state, and oppress that of a strictly agricultural state. But could it on this account be said to b”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Thomas v. Woods“cannot create uniform conditions and circumstances in the various states of the Union.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.