Susquehanna Power Co. v. State Tax Commission’s Empirical Analysis
283 U.S. 291 · 1931
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 9 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2006 · most notably James v. Dravo Contracting Co. (1937), Penn Dairies, Inc. v. Milk Control Commission (1943)
11 federal appellate · 9 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 12 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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Osborn v. President Directors and Company of the Bank of the United States · United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. · Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell · Railroad Company v. Peniston
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Assuming, for present purposes, that the license of' the Power Commission is a Federal instrumentality, immune from taxation or other direct interference by the State, it does not follow that the property appellant uses-, in its power project is clothed with that immunity. The-exemption of an instrumentality of one government from-taxation by the other must be given such a practical construction as will not unduly impair the taxing power of' the one or the appropriate exercise of its functions by the-other. * * *.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The distinction has long been taken between a privilege or franchise granted by the government to a private corporation in order to effect some governmental purpose, and the property employed by. the grantee in the exercise of the privilege, but for private business advantage. The distinction was pointed out by Chief Justice Marshall, in McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 435 , 4 L. Ed. 579, 608 , and in Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 867 , 6 L. Ed. 204, 234 ; see Union P. R. Co. v. Peniston, 18 Wall. 5, 34-37 , 21 L. Ed. 787, 792-794 . It has been followed without departure, and property so owned and used has uniformly been held to be subject to state taxation.” .”
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.