Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 227 U.S. 389 - Crenshaw v. Arkansas

Crenshaw v. Arkansas’s Empirical Analysis

227 U.S. 389 · 1913

Citation profile

201
cited by 201 later decisions
38
cited 38 times by the Supreme Court
24
states following
June 2019
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 14 district · 89 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 201 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Simpson v. Shepard (1913), Breard v. City of Alexandria La (1951)

18 federal appellate · 14 district · 89 state decisions — followed in 24 states

68019131920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Brown v. Maryland · Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby Co Tennessee · Leisy v. Hardin · Welton v. The State of Missouri · Crutcher 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 201 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The negotiation of sales of goods which are in another State, for the purpose of introducing them in the State in which the negotiation is made, is interstate commerce. Robbins v. Shelby County Taxing District, 120 U.S. 489 , [ 75 S.Ct. 592 ].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Nor does the fact that these articles were not shipped separately and directly to each individual purchaser, but were sent to an agent of the vendor at Greensboro, who delivered them to the purchasers, deprive the transaction of its character as interstate commerce. It was only that the vendor used two instead of one agency jn the delivery. It would seem evident that, if the vendor had sent the articles by an express company, which should collect on delivery, such a mode of delivery would not have subjected the transaction to state taxation. The same could be said if the vendor himself, or by a personal agent, had carried and delivered the goods to the purchaser. That the articles were sent as freight by rail, and were received at the' railroad station by an agent who delivered them to the respective purchasers, in nowise changes the character of the commerce as interstate. “Transactions between manufacturing companies in one state, through agents, with citizens of another, constitute a large part of interstate commerce; and for us to hold; with the court below, that the same articles, if sent by rail directly' to the purchaser, are free from state taxation, but, if sent to an ágent to deliver, are taxable through a license tax upon the agent, would evidently take a considerable portion of such traffic out of the salutary protection of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Nor does the fact that the law now in question was alleged to have been passed in the exercise of the police power of the state make it lawful.””
    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.