Hope Natural Gas Co. v. Hall, State Tax Commissioner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 federal appellate · 21 district · 59 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 178 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““By the terms of the statute, the tax is to be calculated on the value of the article produced, and that value is to be shown by the gross proceeds of its sale. . . . “We are warranted in presuming that the Legislature did not mean to include, as an element of value, so much of the gross proceeds of the sale of an article in interstate commerce as is represented by the cost of transportation, and we restrain the operation of the statute accordingly. This presumption and this limitation are strengthened by the concluding sentence of the statute, whereby the measure of the tax is declared to be the value of the product in this state, regardless of place of sale or delivery outside of state. If the sale of a commodity produced in this state imposes on the seller delivery in another state, then the sale price necessarily includes the cost of the delivery. Such sale price would not reflect the worth of the commodity in the state, but the worth within the state plus the cost of transportation. If the taxation value of the products named in the statute be limited to their value in the state, and before they enter interstate commerce, the statute does not manifest a purpose to violate article 1 of the federal Constitution, and we so hold.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cumberland Pipe Line Co. v. Commonwealth · Moore v. State Bd. of Charities and Corrections

2. ““Counsel admit that without violating the commerce clause the state may lay a' privilege or occupation tax upon producers of natural gas reckoned according to the value of that commodity at the well. American Mfg. Co. v. St. Louis, 250 U. S. 459 , 39 S. Ct. 522 , 63 L. Ed. 1084 ; Heisler v. Thomas Colliery Co., 260 U. S. 245 , 43 S. Ct. 83 , 67 L. Ed. 237 ; Oliver Iron Min. Co. v. Lord, 262 U. S. 172 , 43 S. Ct. 526 , 67 L. Ed. 929 . But they insist that, accepting the statute under consideration as construed by the highest court of the state, plaintiff m error will be subjected to an unlawful direct tax upon gross receipts derived from interstate commerce. This argument rests chiefly upon certain language excerpted from the opinion below. But we review the final decree and must accept the statute as authoritatively construed and applied. The plain result of the opinion and final decree is to require that the tax be computed upon the value of the gas at the well, and not otherwise. If, hereafter, executive officers disregard the approved construction and fix values upon any improper basis appropriate relief may be obtained through the courts.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cumberland Pipe Line Co. v. Commonwealth · Moore v. State Bd. of Charities and Corrections

3. ““The value of products, including byproducts, extracted or manufactured shall be determined by the gross proceeds derived from the sale thereof whether such sale is at wholesale or at retail, to which shall be added all subsidies and bonuses received from the purchaser or from any other person with respect to the extraction, manufacture, or sale of such products or byproducts by the seller, .' . .” (Italics ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 45 Wash. 2d 749 - Crown Zellerbach Corp. v. State