Hibben v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
191 U.S. 310 · 1903
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 13 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 166 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Fuentes v. Shevin (1972), Wolfe Londoner v. City and County of Denver (1908)
13 federal appellate · 13 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 22 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 Pennoyer v. Neff · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Hurtado v. People of the State of California · John Den James Murray and John Kayser v. The Hoboken Land and Improvement Company John Den James B Murray et al. · Hovey v. Elliott
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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Due process of law is afforded where there is opportunity to be heard before the tody which is to make the assessment, and the legislature of a state may provide that such hearing shall be conclusive so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“legitimately operates to extend to the citizens and residents of the States the same protection against arbitrary state legislation, affecting life, liberty and property, as is offered by the Fifth Amendment against similar legislation by Congress.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We have not the slightest doubt of the power of a legislature, * * * to create a tribunal in a city or town, * * * to make an assessment, and that such assessment would be valid, notwithstanding the fact that every member of the board was a taxpayer of the city or the town. It is a matter of legislative discretion as to how such a board shall be constituted, and we hazard nothing in saying that it is quite common throughout the country for the legislatures of the states to create a tribunal for levying assessments for local improvements in a manner precisely like the case in question. “To say that no one who was a taxpayer in a city or town could act in imposing an assessment upon property therein is to say that the legislature is wholly without power, by reason of the Federal Constitution, to constitute a tribunal to make an assessment where such tribunal is composed of taxpayers in the city or town. This we do not believe. It must frequently happen that a board * * * to assess all property for general taxation, will be composed of men who themselves own property in the city and assess the same for purposes of such taxation.””
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.