Buck v. Beach’s Empirical Analysis
206 U.S. 392 · 1907
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 14 district · 65 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2012 · most notably Ashe v. Swenson (1970), Miller Bros. v. Maryland (1954)
10 federal appellate · 14 district · 65 state decisions — followed in 24 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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Knowlton v. Moore · Coe v. Town of Errol · Pullman's Palace-Car Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · Union Refrigerator Transit Company v. Commonwealth of Kentucky
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The question still remains, was there any property within the jurisdiction of the state of Indiana, so as to permit that state to tax it, simply because of the presence of the Ohio notes in that state? It was not the value of the paper as a tangible thing, on which these promises to pay the debts existing in Ohio were written, that was taxed by that state. The property really taxed was the debt itself, as each separate note was taxed at the full amount of the debt named therein or due thereon. And jurisdiction over these debts for the purpose of taxation was asserted and exercised solely by reason of the physical presence in Indiana of the notes themselves, although they were only written evidence of the existence of the debts which were in fact thereby taxed. . . . Under such rule, the debts here in question were riot property within the state of Indiana, nor were the promissory notes themselves, which were only evidence of such debts.” (Pages 402, 403.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The rule giving jurisdiction where the specialty may be found, has no application to a promissory note.”
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.