Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 U.S. 516 - Farmers Mechanics Savings Bank of Minneapolis v. State of Minnesota

Farmers Mechanics Savings Bank of Minneapolis v. State of Minnesota’s Empirical Analysis

232 U.S. 516 · 1914

Citation profile

194
cited by 194 later decisions
71
cited 71 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 8 district · 61 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 194 later decisions (71 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co. (1921), James v. Dravo Contracting Co. (1937)

5 federal appellate · 8 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 20 states

680191419201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. · Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust 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 194 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““It is, however, further suggested that the judgment under review does not sustain a tax upon the bonds as property, but only a tax upon the surplus of the savings bank, computed by taking into the account all of its assets, amounting to about $12,000,000, of which the bonds were only about $700,000, and deducting therefrom its liabilities. But as the surplus is treated as property and taxed as such, it is obvious that some portion of the burden of the tax is attributable to the ownership of the municipal bonds. In Bank of Commerce v. New York City, 2 Black (U. S.), 620, it was held that the State of New York in taxing the capital of banks according to its valuation must leave out of the calculation that portion of the capital invested in stocks, bonds, or other securities of the United States not liable to taxation by the State. And see Bank Tax Case, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 200; Home Savings Bank v. City of Des Moines, 205 U. S. 503, 509 (27 Sup. Ct. 571). “It results that the inclusion of the bonds now in question in the list of the assets of plaintiff in error, in ascertaining its surplus for the purpose of imposing a State property tax thereon, was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The right to tax the contract to any extent, when made, must operate upon the power to borrow before it is exercised, and have a sensible influence on the contract. The extent of this influence depends on the will of a distinct government. To any extent, however inconsiderable, it is a burden on the operations of government.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““But we deem it entirely clear that a tax upon the exercise of the function of issuing municipal bonds is a tax upon the operations of the government, and not in any sense a tax upon the property of the municipality.””
    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.