Loughborough v. Blake’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 federal appellate · 14 district · 7 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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It will not bo contended that the modification of the power extends ic places to which the power itself does not extend. The power, then, to levy and collect duties, Imposts, and excises may be exercised, and must be exercised, throughout the United States. Does this term [i. c. the “United States”] designate ilie whole or any portion of the American empire? Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the name given to our great republic-, which is composed of states and territories. The District of Columbia, or the territory west of the Missouri is not less within the United States than Maryland or Pennsylvania; and it is not less necessary, on the principles of the constitution, that uniformity in the imposition of imposts, duties, and excises should be observed in the one than in the other. Since, then, the power to lay and collect taxes, which includes direct taxes, is obviously co-oxtensive with the power to lay and collect duties, imposts, and excises, and since the latter extends throughout the United Slates, it follows that the power to impose direct taxes also extends throughout 1ho United States.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Goetze v. United States · Juneau Hardware Co. v. Troy

2. “If it be said, that the principle of uniformity, established in the constitution, secures the district from oppression in the imposition of indirect taxes, it is not less true, that the principle of apportionment, also established in the constitution, secures the district from any oppressive exercise of the power to lay and collect direct taxes.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gary v. United States · 303 F. Supp. 2d 1 - Banner v. United States

3. ““ * * * The 20th section of the first article declares, that ‘representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states * * * ’. The obj ect of this regulation is, we think, to furnish a standard by which taxes are to be apportioned, not to exempt from their operation any part of our country. Had the intention been to exempt from taxation those who were not represented in Congress, that intention would have been expressed in direct terms. The power having been expressly granted, the exception would have been expressly made. But a limitation can scarcely be said to be insinuated. The words used do not mean that direct taxes shall be imposed on states only which are represented, or shall be apportioned to representatives; but that direct taxation, in its application to states, shall be apportioned to numbers. Representation is not made the foundation of taxation * *”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Green v. District of Columbia