Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 266 U.S. 271 - Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd. v. State Tax Commission

Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd. v. State Tax Commission’s Empirical Analysis

266 U.S. 271 · 1924

Citation profile

374
cited by 374 later decisions
84
cited 84 times by the Supreme Court
35
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 6 district · 206 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 374 later decisions (84 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably Whitney v. People of State of California (1927), Container Corp. of America v. Franchise Tax Board (1983)

33 federal appellate · 6 district · 206 state decisions — followed in 35 states

9101924193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Shaffer v. Carter · Galveston Harrisburg San Antonio Railway Company v. State of Texas · Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain · Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas ex rel. Coleman · Home Insurance Co of New York v. State of New York

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

  1. “* * * [A]s the Company carried on the unitary business of manufacturing and selling ale, in which its profits were earned by a series of transactions beginning with the manufacture in England and ending in sales in New York and other places — the process of manufacturing resulting in no profits until it ends in sales — the State was justified in attributing to New York a just proportion of the profits earned by the Company from such unitary business.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`showing that 47 per cent. of its net income [was] not reasonably attributable, for purposes of taxation, to the manufacture of products from the sale of which 80 per cent. of its gross earnings was derived after paying manufacturing costs.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “application of the statutory method of apportionment has produced an unreasonable result.”
    3 later decisions 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.