Kehrer v. Stewart’s Empirical Analysis
197 U.S. 60 · 1905
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 26 district · 59 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 174 later decisions (41 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2001 · most notably Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co. (1916), McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co. (1940)
12 federal appellate · 26 district · 59 state decisions — followed in 18 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 Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Slaughter-House Cases the Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live · Barbier v. Connolly · Ex parte Virginia · Brown v. Maryland
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 174 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ The argument that the tax impairs- the obligation of a contract between the petitioner and Nelson Morris & Company is hardly worthy of serious consideration. The power of taxation overrides any agreement of an employe to serve for a specific sum.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In carrying on the domestic business, petitioner was indistinguishable from the ordinary butcher, who slaughters cattle and sells their carcasses, and in principle it made no difference that the cattle were slaughtered in Chicago and their carcasses sent to Atlanta for sale and consumption in the ordinary course of trade. Upon arrival there they became a part of the taxable property of the state. It made no difference whence they came and to whom they were ulti mately sold, or whether the domestic and interstate business were carried on in the same or different buildings. . . . The record does not show what proportion of such business is interstate and what proportion is domestic, although it is conceded that most of the business is interstate in its character. If the amount of domestic business were purely nominal, as, for instance, if the consignee of a shipment made in Chicago upon an order filled there refused the goods shipped, and the only way of disposing of them was by sales at Atlanta, this might be held to be strictly incidental to an interstate business, and in reality a part of it, as we held in Crutcher v. Kentucky, 141 U. S. 47 , 11 Sup. Ct. 851, 35 L. Ed. 649 ; but if the agent carried on a definite, though a minor, part of his business in the state by the sales of meat there, he would not escape the payment of the tax, since the greater or less magnitude of the business cuts no figure in the imposition of the tax. There could be no doubt whatever that, if the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““What the necessity is for such tax and upon what occupations it shall be imposed, as well as the amount of the imposition, are exclusively within the control of the state Legislature. So long as there is no discrimination against citizens of other states, the amount and necessity of the tax are not open to criticism here.” Kehrer v. Stewart, 197 U. S. 60 , 25 Sup. Ct. 403 , 49 L. Ed. 663 .”
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.