Millard v. Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
202 U.S. 429 · 1906
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 15 district · 26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 169 later decisions (13 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2019 · most notably Flast v. Cohen (1968), Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)
60 federal appellate · 15 district · 26 state decisions — followed in 12 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
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on William Marbury v. James Madison · Field v. Clark · Cohens v. Virginia · Ex parte Garland · Thompson v. State of Utah
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 169 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is sufficient in the present case to say that an act of Congress providing a national currency secured by a pledge of bonds of the United States, and which in the furtherance of that object, and also to meet the expenses attending the execution of the act, imposed a tax on the notes in circulation of the banking associations organized under the statute, is clearly not a revenue bill, which the Constitution declares must originate in the House of Representatives. Mr. Justice Story has well said that the practical construction of the Constitution and the history of the origin of the constitutional provision in question proves that revenue bills are those that levy taxes in the strict sense of the word, and are not bills for other purposes which may incidentally create revenue. 1 Story on Const. § 880. The main purpose that Congress had in view was to provide a national currency based upon United States bonds, and to that end it was deemed wise to impose the tax in question. The tax was a means for effectually accomplishing the great object of giving to the people a currency that would rest, primarily, upon the honor of the United States, and be available in every part of the country. There was no purpose by the act or by any of its provisions to raise revenue to be applied in meeting the expenses or obligations of the government.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hatever taxes are imposed are but means to the purposes provided by the act [i.e., to provide railroad terminal facilities].”
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.