Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 226 U.S. 464 - Ewing v. City of Leavenworth

Ewing v. City of Leavenworth’s Empirical Analysis

226 U.S. 464 · 1913

Citation profile

38
cited by 38 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
June 1990
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 6 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 38 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1990 · most notably Central Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Mealey (1948), Pullman Co. v. Richardson (1923)

1 federal appellate · 6 district · 15 state decisions

110191319201930194019501960197019801990decided

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

reviewedCity of Leavenworth v. Ewing

Relationships

Relies on Crutcher v. Commonwealth of Kentucky · Leloup v. Port of Mobile · United States Express Company v. State of Minnesota · Maine v. Grand Trunk Railway Co. · Hanley v. Kansas City Southern Railway 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “If it has happened that through engineering difficulties—as the interposition of a mountain or a river—the line is deflected so as to cross the boundary and run for the time being in another state than that of its principal location, does such detour in itself impress an external character on internal intercourse? For example, the Nashville, Chattanooga and St. Louis Railway Company is a corporation created under the laws of Tennessee, and through freight and passengers transported from Nashville to Chattanooga pass over a few miles in Alabama, and perhaps two miles in Georgia, but we had not supposed that the circumstance would render the taxation of that company, in respect of such business, by the state of Tennessee invalid * * * It should be remembered that the question does not arise as to the power of any other state than the state of the termini, nor as to taxation upon the property of the company situated elsewhere than in Pennsylvania, nor as to the regulation by Pennsylvania of the operations of this or any other company elsewhere, but it is simply whether, in the carriage of freight and passengers between two points in one state, the mere passage over the soil of another state renders that business foreign, which is domestic. We do not think such a view can be reasonably entertained * * *”
    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.