First Nat Bank of Wellingtion Ohio v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis
173 U.S. 205 · 1899
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2005 · most notably First Nat. Bank of Guthrie Center v. Anderson (1926), Michigan Central Railroad v. Powers (1906)
18 federal appellate · 4 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Mercantile Nat Bank of New York v. Mayor Etc of New York · First Nat Bank of Aberdeen v. County of Chehalis · The Anne · Bank of Commerce v. Seattle
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Your orator further avers that by section 2780 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio it is enacted that ‘the term “credits” shall he held to mean the excess of the sum of all legal claims and demands, whether for money or other valuable thing, or for labor or service due to, or to become due to the person liable to pay taxes thereon, including deposits in hanks or with persons in or out of this slate, other than such as are held to be money as hereinbefore defined, when added together (estimating every such claim or demand at its true value in money) over and above the sum of legal bona fide debts owing by such person’; and by section 2786 of the Revised Statutes of Ohio it is provided that every person required to list property for taxation shall deliver to the assessor annually a statement of all personal property, money, and ‘credits’ and other property in his possession or under his control on the day preceding the second Monday of April of that year, which he is required to list for taxation; and by section 2787 it is provided that such statement, among oilier things, shall truly set forth the amount of ‘credits’ possessed by such person, as that term is by the above recited statute defined. Your orator says that a large amount of moneyed capital in the hands of individuals, invested in promissory notes and other obligations and credits, is by t lie aforesaid provision, allowing deduction of legal, bona fide debts to be made therefrom, expressly exempted from taxation, thereb”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““With no purpose to discriminate against the holders of shares in national hanks, and with the taxation of the shareholders in the two classes of hanks — ■ state and national — precisely the same, the question is whether this system of taxation in Ohio, in its practical operation, does materially discriminate against the national hank shareholder in the assessment upon his hank shares.””
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.