Shelton v. Platt’s Empirical Analysis
139 U.S. 591 · 1891
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 32 district · 48 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 252 later decisions (44 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1983 · most notably Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916), Bob Jones University v. Simon (1974)
58 federal appellate · 32 district · 48 state decisions — followed in 17 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 Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Poindexter v. Greenhow · Cummings v. National Bank · Dows v. City of Chicago · Snyder v. Marks
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 252 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But Hie statute of the state expressly declares that suits may be brought to enjoin the illegal levy of taxes and assessments, or the collection of th em ; and, though we have repeatedly decided in this court that the statute of a stain cannot control the mode of procedure in equity cases in federal courts, nor deprive theip of their separate equity jurisdiction, we have also held that, where the statute of a state created a new right, or provided a, new remedy, the federal courts will enforce that right, either on the common law or equity side of its docket, as the nature of its new right or remedy requires. Here there can be no doubt that the remedy by injunction against an illegal tax expressly granted by the statute is to be enforced, and can only be appropriately enforced, on the equity side of the court. ® * ® The statute also answers another objection made to the relief sought in this suit, namely, that equity will not enjoin the collection of a tax except under some of the well-known heads of equity jurisdiction, among which is not a mere overvaluation, or the illegality of Hie tax, or in any case where there is an adequate remedy at law. The statute of Ohio expressly provides for an injunction against the collection of a tax illegally assessed, as well as for an action to recover back such tax when paid, showing clearly an intention to authorize both remedies in such cases.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Under that act, where an officer charged by law with the collection of revenue due the state takes any steps for the collection of the same, a party conceiving the tax to be unjust or illegal may pay it under protest, and sue the officer to recover the money back, and, if the court determines that it was wrongfully collected, then, upon its certificate to that effect, the comptroller 'shall issue his warrant for the •same, which shall be paid in preference to other claims on the treasury.’ And the act further provides that there shall be no other remedy in any case of the collection of revenue, and no writ for the prevention of such collection or to hinder and delay it shall in any wise issue, either injunction, supersedeas, prohibition, or any other writ or process whatever. “This act has been sanctioned and applied by the courts of Tennessee. [Authorities]. It is, as counsel observe, similar to the act of congress forbidding suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of taxes under the internal revenue laws, in respect to which this court held that the remedy by suit to recover back the tax after payment, provided for by the statute, was exclusive. [Authority]. Legislation of this character has been called for by the embarrassments resulting from the improvident employment of the writ of injunction in arresting the collection of the public revenue; and, even in its absence, the strong arm of the court of chancery ought not to be interposed in that dir”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The party of whom an illegal tax is collected has ordinarily ample remedy, either by action against the officer making the collection or the body to whom the tax is paid. Here such remedy existed. If the tax was illegal, the plaintiff protesting against its enforcement- might have had his action, after it was paid, against the officer or the city to recover back the money, or he might have prosecuted either for his damages. No irreparable injury would have followed to him from its collection. Nor would he have been compelled to resort to a multiplicity of suits to determine his rights.”
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.