South Carolina v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
199 U.S. 437 · 1905
Citation profile
123 federal appellate · 58 district · 132 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 600 later decisions (130 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2025 · most notably Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923), Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934)
123 federal appellate · 58 district · 132 state decisions — followed in 35 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 Boyd v. United States · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Gibbons v. Ogden · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States
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 600 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'‘These decisions, while not controlling the question before us, indicate that the thought has been that the exemption of state agencies and instrumentalities from national taxation is limited to those which are of a strictly governmental character and does not extend to those which are used by the state in the carrying on of an ordinary private business.” *”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In order to determine to what extent that implication will go we must turn to the condition of things at the time the Constitution was framed. What, in the light of that condition, did the framers of the Convention intend should be exempt? Certain it is that modern notions as to the extent to which the functions of a state may be carried had then no hold. Whatever Utopian theories may have been presented by any writers were regarded as mere creations of fancy, and had no practical recognition. It is true that monoplies in respect to certain commodities were known to have been granted by absolute monarchs, but they were not regarded as consistent with Anglo-Saxon ideas of government. The opposition to the Constitution came, not from any apprehension of danger from the extent of power reserved to the states, but, on the other hand, entirely through fear of what might result from the exercise of the powers granted to the central government. While many believed that the liberty of the people depended on the preservation of the rights of the states, they had no thought that those states would extend their functions beyond their then recognized scope or so as to imperil the life of the nation. . . . “If we look upon the Constitution in the light of the common law we are led to the same conclusion. All the avenues of trade were open to the individual. The government did not attempt to exclude him from any. Whatever restraints were put upon him were mere police regulations to contro”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Constitution is a written instrument. As such its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now.”
3 later decisions 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.