Susquehanna Coal Company v. Mayor and Council of the City of South Amboy’s Empirical Analysis
228 U.S. 665 · 1913
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 53 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1981 · most notably Nashville St Ry v. Wallace (1933), John Hendrick v. State of Maryland (1915)
10 federal appellate · 53 state decisions — followed in 14 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 General Oil Co. v. Crain · New Orleans v. Citizens' Bank · Deposit Bank of Frankfort v. Board of Councilmen of the City of Frankfort · Bacon v. People of the State of Illinois
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We come then to the question whether the grain, here involved, was moving in interstate commerce so that the imposition of the local tax may be said to be repugnant to the Federal power. “. . . neither the fact that the grain had come from outside the State nor the intention of the owner to send it to another State and there to dispose of it can be deemed controlling when the taxing power of the State of Illinois is concerned. The property was held by the plaintiff in error in Chicago for his own purposes and with full power of disposition. It was not being actually transported and it was not held by carriers for transportation. The plaintiff in error had withdrawn it from the carriers. ... He had established a local facility in Chicago for his own benefit and while, through its employment, the grain was there at rest, there was no reason why it should not be included with his other property within the State in an assessment for taxation which was made in the usual way without discrimination.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is manifest that the coal was used to fill anticipated orders, orders not immediately made but, it may be, certain to be made. . . . It is clear, we repeat, that such trade could only be accommodated through the storage of coal somewhere, and plaintiff in error availed itself of the conditions to put the storage in New Jersey. The coal, therefore, was not in actual movement through the State; it was at rest in the State, and was to be handled and distributed from there.”
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.