Irwin v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
258 U.S. 219 · 1922
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 16 district · 67 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 173 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2004 · most notably United States v. Allegheny County Pa (1944), James v. Dravo Contracting Co. (1937)
32 federal appellate · 16 district · 67 state decisions — followed in 15 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 Van Brocklin v. Anderson · Wisconsin Cent Co v. Price County · Warner Valley Stock Company v. Smith · Baltimore Shipbuilding Dry Dock Company of Baltimore City v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore · Forbes v. Gracey
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 173 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““In view of the inconvenience, of which the present case is a striking instance, occasioned by this state of the law, it would seem desirable that Congress should provide for the difficulty by enacting that, in the ease of suits against the heads of departments abating by death or resignation, it should be lawful for the successor in office to be brought into the case by petition, or some other appropriate method.” Bernardin v. Butterworth, 169 U. S. 605 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Arizona Civil Code, 1913, contains the following: ‘ ‘ ‘ Sec. 461. An action shall not abate by the death or other disability of a party, or by the transfer of any interest therein, if the cause of action survive or continue. In case of the death or disability of a party, the court, on motion, may allow the action to be continued by or against his representative or successor in interest. In case of any other transfer of interest, the action may be continued in the name of the original party, or the court may allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted in the action.’ “This does not permit the substitution of a successor for a public-official sued personally.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * y\re think, therefore, that the reason for the rule, making the acquisition of the equitable title the line between non-taxability and taxability, is stronger in case of reclamation homestead entry-men than in the instances • where, before the Reclamation Act, it always applied. Moreover, the confusion caused in the past by the taxation, when specifically permitted, of indefinite and inchoate interests of the beneficiaries of government land grants, should prevent an inference of the congressional intention to depart from the rule requiring an equitable title in the entryman before state taxation, unless a purpose to permit earlier taxation is express or strongly implied.””
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.