Looney v. Crane Co.’s Empirical Analysis
245 U.S. 178 · 1917
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 22 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 257 later decisions (69 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 1967 · most notably Miller Bros. v. Maryland (1954), Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Commission (1926)
26 federal appellate · 22 district · 81 state decisions — followed in 25 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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. · Field v. Clark · Hammond Packing Company v. State of Arkansas · Home Telephone Telegraph Company v. City of Los Angeles
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 257 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But despite the controlling decisions dealing with cases in substance identical in fact and principle with the case here presented and the effect given to them in Texas as to one of the statutes here involved, it is now insisted that the statutes are not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and that error was committed in deciding to the contrary. This is rested on eases decided since those to which we have referred. Baltic Mining Co. v. Massachusetts, 231 U. S. 68 [ 34 S. Ct. 15 , 58 L. Ed. 127 ]; St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350 [ 35 S. Ct. 99 , 59 L. Ed. 265 ]; Kansas City, Fort Scott & Memphis Ry. Co. v. Kansas, 240 U. S. 227 [ 36 S. Ct. 261 , 60 L. Ed. 617 ]; Kansas City, Memphis & Birmingham R. R. Co. v. Stiles, 242 U. S. 111 , [ 37 S. Ct. 58 , 61 L. Ed. 176 ]. The proposition is, therefore, that these cases overruled the previous decisions. The incongruity of the contention will be manifest when it is observed that not only did the cases relied upon contain nothing expressly purporting to overrule the previous cases, but on the contrary in explicit terms declared that they did not conflict with them and that they proceeded upon conditions peculiar to the particular cases.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“direct burdens upon interstate commerce, and, moreover, exerted the taxing authority of the State over property and rights which were wholly beyond the confines of the State, and not subject to its jurisdiction, and therefore constituted a taking without due process.”
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.