Michigan Central Railroad v. Powers’s Empirical Analysis
201 U.S. 245 · 1906
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 25 district · 106 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 195 later decisions (5 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Royster Guano Co v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1920), Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. Stranahan (1909)
25 federal appellate · 25 district · 106 state decisions — followed in 27 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedClark v. Russell (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Boyd v. United States · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Pennoyer v. Neff · M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Hurtado v. People of the State of California
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 195 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"`* * * It is enough that there is no discrimination in favor of one as against another of the same class, and the method for the assessment and collection of the tax is not inconsistent with natural justice.'"”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Undoubtedly a federal court has jurisdiction, and when the question is properly presented it may often become its duty to pass upon the alleged conflict between a statute and the state Constitution, even before the question has been considered by the state tribunals. All objections to the validity of the act, whether springing out of the state or of the federal Constitution, may be presented in a single suit and called for consideration and determination. At the same time federal courts will be reluctant to adjudge a state statute to be in conflict with the state Constitution before that question has been considered by the state tribunals.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Jackson v. Cravens““Undoubtedly the federal court has the jurisdiction, and when the question is properly presented, it may often become its duty to pass upon an alleged conflict between a statute and the state Constitution, even before the question has been considered by the state tribunals. At the same time the court will be reluctant to do so. * * * And this reluctance becomes more imperative whore the statute has been before the highest court of the state, and a decision rendered upon the assumption that it is valid, and this, although the direct question of validity was not presented and determined.””
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.