Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

46 federal appellate · 45 district · 484 state decisions

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

1. “"The law of Illinois was charged with inequality of operation because of the classes which it created. It was asserted, as it is in the case at bar, that the classes were formed upon arbitrary differences, and the provisions of the statute which fixed the tax upon legacies to strangers to the blood of the intestate were vigorously assailed. Those provisions were as follows: "`On each and every $100 of the clear market value of all property and at the same rate for any less amount on all estates of $10,000 and less, $3; on all estates over $10,000 and not exceeding $20,000, $4; on all estates over $20,000 and not exceeding $50,000, $5; and on all estates over $50,000, $6. Provided, that an estate in the above case, which may be valued at a less sum than $500, shall not be subject to any duty or tax.' "Manifestly, there was inequality between the members of different classes, and that was conceded in the opinion, but as manifestly there was equality between the members of each class, and that equality was held to satisfy the 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; and the reasoning by which that conclusion was supported is applicable to the case at bar. We met the contention accurately and squarely that there was no reasonable distinction between the classes. We said: "`If there is inequality it must be because the members of a class are arbitrarily made such and burdened as such, upon no distinctions justifying it. This is claimed. It is said that the tax is n”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Bankers' Trust Co. v. Bowers · State Ex Rel. Lane Drug Stores, Inc. v. Simpson

2. “all alike under like circumstances and conditions, both in the privilege conferred and the liabilities imposed.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman · State Ex Rel. Knox v. Gulf, M. & N., R.

3. “" I. Classification. No question is or could be made by the corporation as to the right of a state, or a municipality with properly delegated powers, to enact laws or ordinances, based on reasonable classification of the objects of the legislation or of the persons whom it affects. `Equal protection' does not prohibit this. Although the wide discretion as to classification retained by a Legislature often results in narrow distinctions, these distinctions, if reasonably related to the object of the legislation, are sufficient to justify the classification. * * * Indeed, it has long been the law under the Fourteenth Amendment that `a distinction in legislation is not arbitrary, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it.' * * * `The rule of equality permits many practical inequalities.' * * * `What satisfied this equality has not been and probably never can be precisely defined.' * * *"”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Southwestern Telegraph & Telephone Co. v. City of Dallas · State v. Johnston