Frick v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

40 federal appellate · 12 district · 270 state decisions

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

1. “[W]e are of opinion that neither the United States nor the State is under any constititutional obligation in determining the amount of its tax to make any deduction on account of the tax of the other. With both the matter of making such a deduction rests in legislative discretion.,”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re the Estate of Moody · Duggan v. Commissioner

2. “‘ ‘ This precise question has not been presented to this court before, but there are many decisions dealing with cognate questions which point the way to its solution. These decisions show, first, that the exaction by a state of a tax which it is without power to impose is a taking of property without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment; secondly, that while a state may so shape its tax laws as to reach every object which is under its jurisdiction, it cannot give them any extra territorial operation; and, thirdly, that, as respects tangible personal property having an actual situs in a particular state, the power to subject it to state taxation rests exclusively in that state, regardless of the domicile of the owner. (Citing cases,) ””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Estate of Marx · 19 Cal. 3d 412 - Estate of Fasken

3. ““It is not to be disputed that, consistently with the Federal Constitution, a state may not tax property beyond its territorial jurisdiction, but the subject-matter here regulated is a privilege to succeed to property which is within the jurisdiction of the state. When the state levies taxes within its authority, property not in itself taxable by the state, may be used as a measure of the tax imposed. ... In the present case the state imposes a privilege tax, clearly within its authority, and it has adopted as a measure of that tax the proportion which the specified local property bears to the entire estate of the decedent. That it may do so within limitations which do not really make the tax one upon property beyond its jurisdiction, the decisions to which we have referred clearly establish. The transfer of certain property within the state is taxed by a rule which considers the entire estate in arriving at the amount of the tax. It is in no just sense a tax upon the foreign property, real or personal. It is only in instances where the state exceeds its authority in imposing a tax upon a subject-matter within its jurisdiction in such a way as to really amount to taxing that which is beyond its authority that such exercise of power by the state is held void.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rigby v. Clayton · Rigby v. Clayton