Edwards v. Chile Copper Co.’s Empirical Analysis
270 U.S. 452 · 1926
Citation profile
93 federal appellate · 62 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 296 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1996 · most notably Moline Properties, Inc. v. Commissioner (1943), Higgins v. Smith (1940)
93 federal appellate · 62 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 13 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedCron v. Grotjan (from Second Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Von Baumbach v. Sargent Land Co. · United States v. Emery, Bird, Thayer Realty Co. · McCoach v. Minehill & Schuylkill Haven Railroad · Chile Copper Co. v. Edwards
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 296 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The cases must be exceptional, when such activities of such corporations do not amount to doing business in the sense of the statutes. The exemption ‘when not engaged in business’ ordinarily would seem pretty nearly equivalent to when not pursuing the ends for which the corporation was organized, in the cases where the end is profit. In our opinion the plaintiff was liable to the tax. We do not rest our conclusion upon the issue of bonds in the first year or the call loans made in the last, and for the same reasons we cannot let the fagot be destroyed by taking up each item of conduct separately and breaking the stick. The activities and situation must be judged as a whole.””
4 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.