Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 285 U.S. 480 - Pacific Co. v. Johnson

Pacific Co. v. Johnson’s Empirical Analysis

285 U.S. 480 · 1932

Citation profile

234
cited by 234 later decisions
53
cited 53 times by the Supreme Court
22
states following
March 2018
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 111 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 234 later decisions (53 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Helvering v. Gowran (1937), Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc. (1935)

32 federal appellate · 111 state decisions — followed in 22 states

740193219401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. · Welton v. The State of Missouri · Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge · Fairbank v. United States · Home Insurance Co of New York v. State of New York

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

  1. “[A] taxing statute, as with other statutes, must be read as a whole and the legislative purpose in enacting it must be taken into account in order to accomplish its goals.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““2 (a). All financial, mercantile, manufacturing and business corporations doing business within the limits of this state, subject to be taxed pursuant to subdivision (d) of section 14 of this article, in lieu of the tax thereby provided for, shall annually pay to the state for the privilege of exercising their corporate franchises within this state a tax according to or measured by their net income. The amount of such state tax shall be equivalent to four per cent of their net income. ...” “2 (b). The legislature, two-thirds of all the members elected to each of the two houses voting in favor thereof, may provide by law for the taxation by any other method authorized in this constitution of the corporations, or the franchises, subject to be taxed pursuant to subdivision (a) of paragraph 2 of this section. ...” “5. The legislature . . . shall define ‘net income’ and may define it to be the entire net income received from all sourc.es. . . . Said taxes shall become a lien on the first Monday in March of 1929 and of each year thereafter. The legislature shall pass laws necessary to carry out this section. ...””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “This distinction, so often and consistently reaffirmed, is but a recognition that the franchise, the privilege of doing business in corporate form, which is a legitimate subject of taxation, does not cease to be such because it is exercised in the acquisition and enjoyment of nontaxables.... The owner may enjoy his exempt property free of tax, but if he asks and receives from the state the benefit of a taxable privilege as the implement of that enjoyment, he must bear the burden of the tax which the state exacts as its price.”
    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.