Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 245 U.S. 170 - Petersen v. State of Iowa State Treasurer

Petersen v. State of Iowa State Treasurer’s Empirical Analysis

245 U.S. 170 · 1917

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
17
cited 17 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
October 1974
most recently cited

9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1974 · most notably Zschernig v. Miller (1968), Clark v. Allen (1947)

9 state decisions

901917192019301940195019601970decided

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 United States v. Perkins · Alexandrine Mager v. Felix Grima · Frederick Frederickson Agent for Caroline Widow Plaefflin v. The State of Louisiana · In re the Estate of Anderson

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

  1. ““Article 7. The United States and his Danish Majesty mutually agree, that no higher or other duties, charges, or taxes of any kind, shall be levied in the territories or dominions of either party, upon any personal property, money or effects, of their respective citizens or subjects, on the removal of the same from their territories or dominions reciprocally, either upon the inheritance of such property, money, or effects, or otherwise, than are or shall be payable in each State, upon the same, when removed by a citizen or subject of such State respectively.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““ Conceding that it [Article 7] requires construction to determine whether the prohibitions embrace taxes ge nerically considered, or death duties, or excises on the right to transfer and remove property, singly' or collectively, we are of the opinion that the duty of interpretation does not arise since in no event would any of the prohibitions be applicable to the case before us.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “case of a citizen or subject of the respective countries residing at home, and disposing of property there in favor of a citizen or subject of the other . . . .”
    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.