Chesebrough v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
192 U.S. 253 · 1904
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 22 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1972 · most notably Eastman Kodak Co of New York v. Southern Photo Materials Co (1927), George Moore Ice Cream Co. v. Rose (1933)
65 federal appellate · 22 district · 16 state decisions
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 Knowlton v. Moore · Magoun v. Illinois Trust & Savings Bank · De Lima v. Bidwell · Fairbank v. United States · United States v. Perkins
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The rule is firmly established that taxes voluntarily paid cannot be recovered back, and payments with knowledge and without compulsion are voluntary. At the same time, when taxes are paid under protest, that they are being illegally exacted, or with notice that the payer contends that they are illegal and Intends to institute suit' to compel their repayment, a recovery in such a suit may, on occasion, he had, although generally speaking, even a protest or notice will not avail if the payment be made voluntarily, with full knowledge of all the circumstances, and without any coercion hy the actual and threatened exercise of power possessed, or supposed to be possessed, by the party exacting or receiving the payment, over the person or property of the party making the payment, from which the latter has no other means of immediate relief than such payment. Little v. Bowers, 134 U. S. 547 , 554, 10 Sup. Ct. 620 , 33 L. Ed. 1016 ; Railroad Company v. Commissioners, 98 U. S. 541 , 544, 25 L. Ed. 196 ; Radich v. Hutchins, 95 U. S. 210 , 24 L. Ed. 409 , citing Brumagin v. Tillinghast, 18 Cal. 265 , 79 Am. Dec. 176 , a case in respect of stamps purchased, in which the subject is discussed by Mr. Justice Field, then Chief Justice of California.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is argued that the provisions of section 3220, for the repayment of judgments against the collector, rendered protest or notice unnecessary for his protection, but it was clearly demanded for the protection of the Government in conducting the extensive business of dealing in stamps, which were sold and delivered in quantities, and without it there would not be the slightest vestige of involuntary payment in transactions like that under consideration. And we find no right of recovery, expressly or by necessary implication, conferred by statute, in such circumstances.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“if that constituted duress as between Chesebrough and his building company, it was a matter with which the collector had nothing to do. On the face of the petition the purchase was purely voluntary and made under .mutual niistaké' of law if the law were unconstitutional.”
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.