Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
240 U.S. 1 · 1916
Citation profile
484 federal appellate · 144 district · 174 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,718 later decisions (170 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), Cohan v. Commissioner (1930)
484 federal appellate · 144 district · 174 state decisions — followed in 34 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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. · Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. · Mondou v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad
Cited together with Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. · Eisner v. Macomber · Knowlton v. Moore · Nichols v. Coolidge · 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 1,718 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“to relieve all income taxes when imposed from apportionment from a consideration of the source whence the income was derived.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“so arbitrary ... that it was not the exertion of taxation but a confiscation of property.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”
12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Eisner v. Macomber · Evans v. Gore
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.