Ashley v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
153 U.S. 436 · 1894
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 43 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 1994 · most notably Northern Securities Company v. United States (1904), Motion Picture Patents Company v. Universal Film Manufacturing Company (1917)
9 federal appellate · 4 district · 43 state decisions — followed in 18 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 Pennoyer v. Neff · Barbier v. Connolly · Paul v. Virginia · State Railroad Tax Cases Taylor Collector et al. v. Secor et al. · Pullman's Palace-Car Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nor is the question at issue affected by the fact that some-of the constituent elements which entered into the consolidated company were corporations owning and operating property in-another State. The power of corporations of other States to become corporations, or to constitute themselves a consolidated corporation under the Ohio statutes, and thus avail of the rights given thereby, is as completely dependent on the will of that State as is the power of its individual citizens to become a corporate, body; or the power of corporations of its own creation to consolidate under its laws. Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519 ; Lafayette Insurance Co. v. French, 18 How. 404 ; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168 , 181.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The purpose of the tender of the articles of consolidation to the secretary of state was to secure to the consolidated company certain powers, immunities, and privileges which appertain to a corporation under the laws of Ohio. The rights thus sought could only be acquired by the grant of the state of Ohio, and depended for their existence upon the provisions of its laws. Without that state’s consent they could not have been procured.” Ashley v. Eyan, 153 U. S., loe. cit. 440, 14 Sup. Ct. 866 , 38 L. Ed. 773 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Winn v. Wabash R.“: ‘ ‘ The question here is not the power of the state of Ohio to lay a charge oh interstate commerce, or to prevent a foreign corporation from engaging in interstate commerce within its confines, but simply the right of the state to determine upon what conditions its laws as to the consolidation of corporations may b'e availed of.” ( 153 U. S. 436 , 14 Sup. Ct. 865, 38 L. Ed. 773 .)”
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.