Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 166 U.S. 171 - Weir v. Norman

Weir v. Norman’s Empirical Analysis

166 U.S. 171 · 1897

Citation profile

108
cited by 108 later decisions
25
cited 25 times by the Supreme Court
17
states following
February 1966
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 9 district · 34 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 108 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1966 · most notably Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue (1938), Wilcox v. Consolidated Gas Co. (1909)

14 federal appellate · 9 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 17 states

26018971900191019201930194019501960decided

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 Adams Express Co. v. Ohio State Auditor · Henderson Bridge Co. v. Commonwealth · Levi v. City of Louisville · Western Union Tel. Co. v. Norman

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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““But taking the whole act together, and in view of the provisions of seetions 4078-1081, we agree with the Circuit Court that it is evident that the word ‘franchi^’ was not employed in a technical sense, and that the legislative intention is plain that the entire property, tangible.and intangible, of all * * * corporations, * * * possessing no franchise, should be valued as an entirety, the value of the tangible to be deducted, and the value of the intangible, property thus ascertained be taxed under these provisions; and as to railroad, telegraph, telephone, express, 'sleeping car, etc., companies whose lines extend beyond the limits of the,state, that their intangible property should be assessed on the basis of the mileage of their lines within and without the state.””
    2 later decisions 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.