Lent v. Tillson’s Empirical Analysis
140 U.S. 316 · 1891
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 139 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1975 · most notably Chicago Co v. City of Chicago (1897), Bauman v. Ross (1897)
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 63 state decisions — followed in 21 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 Davidson v. New Orleans · Hagar v. · Spencer v. Merchant · Cincinnati, New Orleans & Texas Pacific Railroad v. Commonwealth
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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““•Where the taking of .property is in the enforcement of a tax, the proceeding is necessarily less formal, and whether notice to him is at all necessary may depend upon the character of the tax, and the manner in which its amount is determinable. The necessity of revenue for the support of the government does not admit of the delay attendant upon proceedings in a court of justice, and they are not required for the enforcement of taxes or assessments. * * * Of the different kinds of taxes which the state may impose there is a vast number of which, from their nature, no notice can be given to the taxpayer, nor would notice be of any possible advantage to him, such as poll taxes, license taxes (not dependent upon the extent of his business), and, generally, specific taxes on things or persons or occupations. In such eases the Legislature in authorizing the tax fixes its amount, and that is the end of the matter.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““In judging what is ‘due process of law,’ respect must be had to the cause and object of the taking, whether under the taxing power, the power of eminent domain, or the power of assessment for local improvements, or none of these; and, if found to be suitable or admissible in the special ease, it will be adjudged to be ‘due process of law’; but, if found to be arbitrary, oppressive, and unjust, it may be declared to be not ‘due process of law.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . . The judge or judges of that court were obliged, by their oath of office, and in fidelity to the supreme law of the land, to refuse to give effect to any statute that was repugnant to that law, anything in the statute or the Constitution of the State to the contrary notwithstanding.” ( 140 U.S. at 330, 331 , 11 S.Ct. at 830 )”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Collins
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.