Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 U.S. 299 - United States v. James Gordon Bennett

United States v. James Gordon Bennett’s Empirical Analysis

232 U.S. 299 · 1914

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
18
cited 18 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Frick v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1925), Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox (1936)

31 federal appellate · 3 district · 19 state decisions

330191419201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Billings v. United States · United States v. Harriet Goelet

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

  1. “belittles and destroys its advantages and blessings by denying the possession by government of an essential power required to make citizenship completely beneficial.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “shutting that government off from the exertion of powers which inherently belong to it by virtue of its sovereignty.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““It is a settled rule of constitutional law that the power to tax depends upon jurisdiction of the subject-matter of the tax. * * * State taxing power is -based on the limitations on state authority to tax, result ing from the distribution of powers ordained by the Constitution. * * * The application to the states of the rale óf due process relied upon comes from the fact that their spheres of activity are enforced and protected by the Constitution, and therefore, it is impossible for one state to reach out and tax property in another without violating the Constitution, for the power of one ends where the authority of the other begins.” . . The specific property herein sought to be taxed, namely, the certificates- of stock, 'was situated in New York, hence, in the language of the- learned jurist in the above 'case,' “it is impossible for this státe to reach out and tax the property in another state.” • : .”
    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.