Embree v. Kansas City & Liberty Boulevard Road District’s Empirical Analysis
240 U.S. 242 · 1916
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 14 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 162 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2007 · most notably Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951), Browning v. Hooper (1926)
21 federal appellate · 14 district · 67 state decisions — followed in 20 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 Bi-Metallic Investment Company v. State Board of Equalization · Davidson v. New Orleans · Bauman v. Ross · Hagar v. · Wolfe Londoner v. City and County of Denver
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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where a taxing district is not established by the legislature, but by exercise of delegated authority, there is no legislative decision that its location, boundaries and needs are such that the lands therein are benefited, and it is essential to due process of law that the landowners be accorded an opportunity to be heard on the question of benefits.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The claim that the landowners are entitled to a hearing on the question whether the benefits in the different zones will be in accord with the graduated ratings of their lands is not seriously pressed upon our attention and requires but brief notice. The ratings are not fixed in the exercise of delegated authority, but by the statute itself, which must be taken as a legislative decision that in a district lawfully constituted, in the manner before indicated, the benefits to the lands in the different zones will be in approximate accord with the ratings named. This being so, no hearing is essential to give effect to this feature of the apportionment. . A legislative act of this • nature can be successfully called in question only when it is so devoid of any reasonable basis as to be essentially arbitrary and an abuse of power.””
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.