Adams Exp Co v. Ohio State Auditor’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 89 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915), Miller Bros. v. Maryland (1954)
2 federal appellate · 5 district · 89 state decisions — followed in 34 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 Pullman's Palace-Car Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · Pittsburgh St Ry Co v. Backus Indianapolis V R Co · Western Union Tel Co v. Taggart · Sanford v. Poe
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'•Whatever property is worth- for the purpose of income and sale, it is worth for the purpose of taxation.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The first question to be considered therefore is whether there is belonging to these express companies intangible property—property differing from the tangible property—a property created by either the combined use or the manner of use of the separate articles of tangible property, or the grant or acquisition of franchises or privileges, or all together. To say that there can be no such intangible property, that it is something of no value, is to insult the common intelligence of every man.” 166 U. S. at 219-20 , 17 S. Ct. at 605-6, 41 L. ed. at 977.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““But the franchise to be is only one of the franchises of a corporation. The franchise to do is an independent franchise, or rather a combination of franchises, embracing all things which the corporation is given power to do, and this power to. do is as much a thing of value and a part of the intangible property of the corporation as the franchise to be.””
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.