Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 288 U.S. 325 - Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Board of Equalization

Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Board of Equalization’s Empirical Analysis

288 U.S. 325 · 1933

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
20
cited 20 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
July 1976
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 17 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions (20 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1976 · most notably James v. Dravo Contracting Co. (1937), Helvering v. Mountain Producers Corp. (1938)

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 17 state decisions

50019331940195019601970decided

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 · Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co. · Willcuts v. Bunn · Gillespie v. State of Oklahoma · Fox Film Corporation v. Doyal

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

  1. ““There is a recognized distinction between a nondiscriminatory tax upon the property of an agent of the government, albeit the property used in, or as relation to, the business of the agency, * * * and a tax which is deemed to impose a direct burden upon the exertion of governmental powers.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““No constitutional implications prohibit a nondiscriminatory tax upon the property of an agent of government merely because it is the property of such an agent and used in the conduct of the agent’s operations and necessary for the agency.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “; “Such immunity as petitioner enjoyed as a governmental instrumentality inhered in its operations as such, and being for the protection of the government in its-function extended no further than was necessary for that purpose.””
    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.