Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 254 U.S. 64 - Turner v. Wade

Turner v. Wade’s Empirical Analysis

254 U.S. 64 · 1920

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
October 2016
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 35 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2016 · most notably Great Northern Ry Co v. Weeks (1936), Southern Ry Co v. Commonwealth of Virginia Shirley (1933)

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 35 state decisions — followed in 10 states

2301920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Wolfe Londoner v. City and County of Denver · Coe v. Armour Fertilizer Works · Central of Georgia Railway Co. v. Wright · Detroit Trust Company v. Pontiac Savings Bank

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

  1. “In considering certain sections of the Georgia Tax Laws this court held, in Central of Georgia v. Wright, 207 U.S. 127 , 28 Sup. Ct. 47 , 52 L.Ed. 134 , 12 Ann. Cas. 463, that due process of law requires that after such notice as may be appropriate the taxpayer have opportunity to be heard as to the validity of a tax and the amount thereof, by giving him the right to appear for that purpose at some stage of the proceedings. * * *”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Therefore, looking to the sections of the statute for ourselves, we are forced to the conclusion that, reading the provisions together, being parts of one and the same act, they clearly show that the board of assessors was not required to give any notice to the taxpayer, nor was opportunity given him to be heard as of right before the assessment was finally made against him.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the arbitration was to afford .a hearing to him.”
    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.