In Re Buder et al’s Empirical Analysis
271 U.S. 461 · 1926
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 34 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 178 later decisions (44 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 1973 · most notably Ex parte Poresky (1933), Swift & Co. v. Wickham (1965)
53 federal appellate · 34 district ·
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 · Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. Green Garrett · Lemke v. Farmers Grain Co. · McNulta v. Lochridge · Ex parte Cutting
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 178 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Prior to the Act of Congress of March 4, 1923, e. 267, 42 Stat. 1499 [Comp. St. § 9784], amending section 5219 of the Revised Statutes of. the United States, that statute [section 12775, R. S. Mo. 1919] was confessedly valid and operative. It was then the only method of taxation permitted by the federal law. The act of 1923 enlarged the scope of the state’s power to tax national banks. It authorized the state either to tax the shares of a national hank, or to include dividends derived therefrom in taxable income of the holder thereof, or to tax the income of the bank. * * * ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““An interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement, operation or execution of any State statute by restraining the action of any officer of such State in the enforcement or execution of such statute or of an order made by an administrative board or commission acting under State statutes, shall not be granted by any district court or judge thereof upon the ground of the unconstitutionality of such statute unless the application therefor is heard and determined by a district court of three judges under section 2284 of this title.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The requirement respecting the presence of three judges shall also apply to the final hearing in such suit in the district court; and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken from a final decree granting or denying a permanent injunction in such suit.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Wilson
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.