Crew Levick Co v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Empirical Analysis
245 U.S. 292 · 1917
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 17 district · 138 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 347 later decisions (104 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably James v. Dravo Contracting Co. (1937), Nashville St Ry v. Wallace (1933)
27 federal appellate · 17 district · 138 state decisions — followed in 24 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 Robbins v. Taxing District of Shelby Co Tennessee · Galveston Harrisburg San Antonio Railway Company v. State of Texas · Leloup v. Port of Mobile · St. Louis Southwestern Railway Co. v. Arkansas · Case of the State Freight Tax Reading Railroad Company v. Pennsylvania
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 347 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]mposition of a percentage upon each dollar of the gross transactions in foreign commerce ... [is] in effect an impost or duty upon exports.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A state tax imposed upon the business of' selling goods in foreign commerce, the amount of which is measured by the gross receipts, is unconstitutional as a regulation of foreign commerce and also as an impost upon exports, levied without the consent of Congress. “A state tax which imposes a burden upon foreign commerce is not the less unconstitutional because it applies to internal commerce as well.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““We accept the decision of the state court of last resort, respecting the proper construction of the statute, hut are in duty bound to determine the questions raised under the federal Constitution upon our own judgment of the actual operation and effect of the tax, irrespective of the form it bears or how it is characterized by the state courts.””
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.