Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 210 U.S. 266 - City of St. Louis v. United Railways Co.

City of St. Louis v. United Railways Co.’s Empirical Analysis

210 U.S. 266 · 1908

Citation profile

111
cited by 111 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
19
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 11 district · 40 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 111 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2007 · most notably United States v. Winstar Corp. (1996), Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. (1911)

20 federal appellate · 11 district · 40 state decisions — followed in 19 states

28019081910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Stone v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. · Blair v. City of Chicago · Farrington v. Tennessee · Detroit v. Detroit Citizens' Street Railway Co. · The Delaware Railroad Tax Minot v. The Philadelphia Wilington and Baltimre Railroad Company

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

  1. “unless this right has been specifically surrendered in terms which admit of no other reasonable interpretation.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In the fixing’ of a license tax upon all companies alike for the privilege of using cars in the city, it is exerting other charter powers. It makes provision uniformly applicable to all persons or companies using street cars. It is a revenue measure equally applicable to all coming within its terms. We do not perceive that the exercise of the power to grant privileges in the streets in making terms with companies seeking such rights, in the absence of plain and unequivocal terms to that effect, excludes the city’s right to impose the license tax under the power conferred for that purpose.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““An examination of tlie cases in this court shows that it is not sufficient that a street railway company has agreed to pay for the privilege of using the streets for a given term, either in a lump sum, or hy payments- in installments, or percentages of the receipts, to thereby conclude the municipality from exercising a statutory authority to impose license fees or taxes. This right still exists unless there is a distinct agreement, clearly expressed, that the sums to be paid are in lieu of all such exactions.””
    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.