Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 U.S. 261 - Billings v. United States

Billings v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

232 U.S. 261 · 1914

Citation profile

613
cited by 613 later decisions
86
cited 86 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

214 federal appellate · 60 district · 90 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 613 later decisions (86 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2021 · most notably Cohan v. Commissioner (1930), Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad (1916)

214 federal appellate · 60 district · 90 state decisions — followed in 23 states

1560191419201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedUnited States v. Billings (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad · Albert Twining v. State of New Jersey · Knowlton v. Moore

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

  1. ““The cyclopedias and textbooks state the doctrine to be that in the absence of a statute expressly so directing, taxes bear no interest. The principle is thus announced in 37 Cyc., p. 1165: ‘Delinquent taxes do not bear interest unless it is expressly so provided by statute. But it is competent for the legislature to prescribe the payment of interest as a penalty for delay in the payment of taxes, and to regulate its rate. This, however, can be effected only by an act plainly manifesting the legislative intention as to the right to recover interest, its amount, and the date from which it shall begin, the latter being ordinarily the time when the assessment is complete and the taxes become payable.’ Cooley on Taxation, p. 17; Sedgwick on Damages (9th ed.), § 332; Sutherland (3d ed.) § 337; Black on Tax Titles (2d ed.), § 236, and see note in 6 L. R. A. (N. S.), p. 694. And the statement of the text is borne out by the decided cases in nearly all of the state courts of last resort. . . . “The conflict between the systems is pronounced and fundamental. In the one, the state rule, except as to contract, no interest without statute; in the United States rule, interest in all cases where equitably due unless forbidden by statute. In one no suit for taxes as a debt without express statutory authority; in the other, the right to sue for taxes as for a debt in every case where not prohibited by statute.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““In this view the fact of use, not its extent or its frequency, becomes the test, as distinguished from mere ownership, for that in the statutory sense could exist without use having taken place. * * * Use in the statutory sense, although it arises from ownership, is active (objective); that is, it is the outward and distinct exercise, of a right which ownership confers, but which would not necessarily be exerted by the mere fact of ownership.””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““There shall be levied and collected annually on the first day of September by the collector of customs of the district nearest the residence of the managing owner, upon the use of every foreign-built yacht, pleasure boat or vessel, not used or intended to be used for trade, now or hereafter owned or chartered for more than six months by any citizen or citizens of the United States, a sum equivalent to a tonnage tax of seven dollars per gross ton.””
    2 later decisions 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.