Memphis Ry Co v. Pace’s Empirical Analysis
282 U.S. 241 · 1931
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2015 · most notably Carmichael v. Southern Coal & Coke Co. (1937), Nashville St Ry v. Walters (1935)
11 federal appellate · 36 state decisions — followed in 10 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.
Relationships
Relies on County of Mobile v. Kimball · Spencer v. Merchant · Houck v. Little River Drainage District · Browning v. Hooper · Gast Realty Investment Company v. Schneider Granite Company
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The construction and maintenance of serviceable roads in any community is a matter in which the whole community have an interest and is a typical purpose for which property may be taxed by the state. Missouri P. R. Co. v. Western Crawford Road Improv. Dist. 266 U.S. 187, 190 , 69 L. Ed. 237 , 45 S. Ct. 31 . Whether the tax shall be state-wide or confined to the county or local district wherein the improvement is made, and whether it shall be laid generally on all property or all real property within the taxing unit, or shall be laid only on real property specially benefited, are matters which rest in the discretion of the state and are not controlled by either the due process or the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where the tax is laid generally on all property or all real property within the taxing unit, it does not become arbitrary or discriminatory merely because it is spread over such property on an ad valorem basis; nor where the tax is thus general and ad valorem does its validity depend upon the receipt of some special benefit as distinguished from the general benefit to the community.” (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]he defendants contend, and correctly, we consider, that general public improvements, to be paid for by general ad valorem property taxes, do not impose upon the taxing authority any burden of showing special benefit. In Nattin the court said: ‘As the assailed tax was general and ad valorem, its legality does not depend upon the receipt of any special benefit by the taxpayer. ’ ” (Emphasis added.)”
2 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.