Williamson v. State of New Jersey’s Empirical Analysis
130 U.S. 189 · 1889
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently June 1995 · most notably City of New Orleans v. New Orleans Water-Works Co Conery (1891), Madison Metropolitan Sewerage District v. Committee on Water Pollution (1951)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 state decisions
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 United States v. Railroad Co. · The Piqua Branch of the State Bank of Ohio v. Jacob Knoop Treasurer of Miami County · The Town of East Hartford v. The Hartford Bridge Company · People v. Morris · State ex rel. Police Commissioners v. County Court
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The true principle involved in the case is whether the power of taxation on the part of a municipal corporation is private property, or a vested right of property, in its hands, which, when once conferred upon it by an Act of the Legislature, cannot be subsequently modified or repealed. Even without the special provision of the 2d section of the Act of February 18,1862 (P. L. p. 52), it is to be presumed that the poor farm and the personal property thereon would, while situated in the Township of North Brunswick, be subject to taxation by that township unless exempted from such taxation on the ground of a charitable use. The special question in this case arises, therefore, solely out of the use of the words, in the 2d section, ‘at all times hereafter.’ The provision of the 2d section, and the contention here made on the part of the collector, necessarily imply the authority of the Legislature to confer the power of taxation upon the township, and the nonexistence of such power unless conferred by the Legislature. The question arising is, therefore, whether the Legisla ture which passed the Act of February 18, 1862, could lawfully so grant the power of taxation to the township in perpetuity, that a subsequent Legislature could not repeal or modify such grant of power. “We are clearly of opinion that such a grant of the power of taxation, by the Legislature of a State, does not form such a contract between the State and the township as is within the protection of the provision”
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.