Lipke v. Lederer’s Empirical Analysis
259 U.S. 557 · 1922
Citation profile
134 federal appellate · 97 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 488 later decisions (72 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2020 · most notably Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez (1963), Speiser v. Randall (1958)
134 federal appellate · 97 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Towne v. Eisner · O'Sullivan v. Felix · Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant · Child Labor Tax Case
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 488 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Cjertainly we cannot conclude ... that penalties for crime should be enforced through the secret findings and summary action of executive officers. The guarantees of due process of law and trial by jury are not to be forgotten or disregarded.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage““The mere use of the word ‘tax’ in an act primarily designed to define and suppress crime is not enough to show that within the true intendment of the term a tax was laid. Child Labor Tax Case, ante [ 259 U. S. 20 , 42 S. Ct. 449 , 66 L. Ed. 817 , 21 A. L. R. 1432 ]. When by its very nature the imposition is a penalty, it must be so regarded. Helwig v. United States, 188 U. S. 605 , 613 [ 23 S. Ct. 427 , 47 L. Ed. 614 ]. Evidence of crime (section 29) is essential to assessment under section 35.5 It lacks all the ordinary characteristics of a tax, whose primary function ‘is to provide for the support of the government’ and clearly involves the idea of punishment for infraction of the law — the definite function of a penalty. O’Sullivan v. Felix, 223 U. S. 318 , 324 [ 34 S. Ct. 596 , 58 L. Ed. 980 ].””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage““The continued existence of taxes upon illicit liquor is indicated in Section 35 of the National Prohibition Act (p. 317), * * * which provides: ‘This act shall not relieve anyone from paying any taxes or other charges imposed upon the manufacture or traffic in such liquor.’ That Congress in enacting that law would intentionally have exempted illicit liquor from taxation, is not likely. Moreover, we are not dealing with the construction of the law as enacted in 1919. The Willis-Campbell Act; (November 23, 1921, c. 134, § 5, 42 Stat. 222 , 223 * * *), supplemental thereto, continued in force or re-enacted, by express provision, all laws in regard to the taxation of intoxicating liquor not directly in conflict with the prohibitory legislation. Furthermore, the Revenue Act of 1921, (November 23, 1921, c. 136, § 600, 42 Stat. 227 , 285 * * *), enacted on the same day, shows that Congress had no intention then of relieving liquor from taxation merely because illegally dealt with; for it provided specifically that if distilled spirits, tax-paid for nonbeverage purposes, be diverted to beverage purposes, an additional tax of $4.20 per gallon must be paid, although under the law such diversion could not be made legally. ***=$#* “A law which imposes a tax on intoxicating liquor, whether legally or illegally made, is not in conflict with another law which prohibits the making of any such liquor. * * * * * * “A tax on intoxicating liquor does not cease to be such because the sovereign h”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.