Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 292 U.S. 40 - A. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton

A. Magnano Co. v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis

292 U.S. 40 · 1934

Citation profile

563
cited by 563 later decisions
92
cited 92 times by the Supreme Court
36
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

86 federal appellate · 21 district · 212 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 563 later decisions (92 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Walz v. Tax Comm'n of City of New York (1970), Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1943)

86 federal appellate · 21 district · 212 state decisions — followed in 36 states

17301934194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 · Massachusetts v. Mellon · Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad · Nichols v. Coolidge · Heiner v. Donnan

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

  1. ““Collateral purposes or motives of a Legislature in levying a tax of a kind within the reach of its lawful power are matters beyond the scope of judicial inquiry.””
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “From the beginning of our government, the courts have sustained taxes although imposed with the collateral intent of effecting ulterior ends which, considered apart, were beyond the constitutional power of the lawmakers to realize by legislation directly addressed to their accomplishment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The act, considered as a whole, clearly negatives the idea that a burden is imposed upon interstate commerce, as the court below held. The tax is confined to sales within the state, and . . has no application to sales of oleomargarine to be either imported or exported in interstate commerce.”
    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.