Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 280 U.S. 124 - Bromley v. McCaughn

Bromley v. McCaughn’s Empirical Analysis

280 U.S. 124 · 1929

Citation profile

302
cited by 302 later decisions
53
cited 53 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

69 federal appellate · 21 district · 57 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 302 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably United States v. Wells (1931), Nashville St Ry v. Wallace (1933)

69 federal appellate · 21 district · 57 state decisions — followed in 15 states

15901929193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Third Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. · Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad · Knowlton v. Moore · Brown v. Maryland · Doyle v. Mitchell Bros.

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

  1. “a tax imposed upon a particular use of property or the exercise of a single power over property incidental to ownership,”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[excise] taxes of this type were not understood to be direct taxes when the Constitution was adopted”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “have been deemed to be indirect and so valid although not apportioned”
    1 later decision 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.