Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 203 U.S. 323 - Security Trust Safety Vault Company v. City of Lexington E T

Security Trust Safety Vault Company v. City of Lexington E T’s Empirical Analysis

203 U.S. 323 · 1906

Citation profile

166
cited by 166 later decisions
15
cited 15 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
June 1992
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 16 district · 96 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 166 later decisions (15 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1992 · most notably Fuentes v. Shevin (1972), Bi-Metallic Investment Company v. State Board of Equalization (1915)

16 federal appellate · 16 district · 96 state decisions — followed in 24 states

3401906191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Davidson v. New Orleans · Hagar v. · Spencer v. Merchant · Stuart v. . Palmer · Pittsburgh St Ry Co v. Backus Indianapolis V R Co

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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““If the statute did not provide for a notice in any form, it is not material that as a matter of grace or favor notice may have been given of the proposed assessment. It is not what notice, uncalled for by the statute, the taxpayer may have received in a particular case that is material, but the question is whether any notice is provided for by the statute” (citing Stuart v. Palmer, supra).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Before an assessment of taxes could be- made upon omitted property, notice to the taxpayer, with an opportunity to be heard, was essential, and that somewhere during the process of the assessment the taxpayer must have an. opportunity to be heard, and that this notice must be provided as an essential part of the statutory provision, and not awarded as a mere matter -of favor or grace.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an opportunity to be heard upon the question of the validity of the tax”
    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.