Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
240 U.S. 103 · 1916
Citation profile
90 federal appellate · 23 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 284 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2013 · most notably Eisner v. Macomber (1920), Burnet v. Harmel (1932)
90 federal appellate · 23 district · 15 state decisions
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 Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. · Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad · Barbier v. Connolly · Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. · Gulf Ry Co v. Ellis
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 284 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““G. (a) That the normal tax hereinbefore imposed upon individuals likewise shall be levied, assessed, and paid annually upon the entiz-e net income arising or accruing from all sources during the preceding calendar year to every corporation. * * * “(b) Such net income shall be ascertained by deducting from the gross amount of the income of such corporation, * * * received within the year from all sources, (first) all * * * ordinary and necessary expenses paid within the year; * * * (second) all losses actually sustained within the year; * * * (third) the amount of interest accrued and paid within the year; * * * (fourth) all sums paid by it within the year for taxes. “(c) The tax herein imposed shall be computed upon its entire net income ac-. crued within each preceding calendar year ending December 31st. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[T]he provisions of the 16th Amendment ... simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived....””
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.