Atlantic Refining Co. v. Virginia’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 3 district · 17 state decisions

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

1. ““* * * Whether the privilege [of engaging in intrastate commerce in Virginia] shall be granted to a foreign corporation is a matter of state policy. Virginia might refuse to grant the privilege for any business or might grant the privilege for some kinds of business and deny it to others. [A footnote at this point discloses that “Virginia does, in fact, refuse to foreign corporations the privilege of doing any intrastate public service business.”] It might grant the privilege to all corporations with small capital while denying the privilege to those whose capital or resources are large. It might grant the privilege without exacting compensation; or it could insist upon a substantial payment as a means of raising revenue. “As the entrance fee is not a tax, but compensation for the privilege applied for and granted, no reason appears why the State is not as free to charge $5,000 for the privilege as it would be to charge that amount for a franchise granted to a local utility, or for a parcel of land which it owned. “* * * The payment required is a single, non-recurrent charge— a payment in advance for a privilege extending into the long future. “No matter how large the company’s local business may be, no matter how much, or how often, its issued capital may be increased, no additional entrance fee is payable. * * * Nor is it unreasonable to base the fee upon the amount of capital authorized at the time of the application, instead of charging a fee based upon the amount of the ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Texas Co. v. Koontz

2. “In subjecting a law of the State which imposes a charge upon foreign corporations to the test whether such a charge violates the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, a line has to be drawn between the burden imposed by the State for the license or privilege to do business in the State, and the tax burden, which, having secured the right to do business, the foreign corporation must share with all the corporations and other taxpayers of the State. With respect to the admission fee, so to speak, which the foreign corporation must pay, to become a quasi citizen of the State and entitled to equal privileges with the citizens of the State, the measure of the burden is in the discretion of the State, and any inequality as between the foreign corporation and the domestic corporation in that regard does not come within the inhibition of the Fourteenth Amendment.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. Director of Revenue

3. ““The position of the company in the case at bar differs radically from that of the foreign corporation involved in Cudahy Packing Co. v. Hinkle, 278 U.S. 460 , 73 L.Ed 454, 49 S.Ct. 204 , Supra, and from those in the other decisions of this court on which appellant relies. In each of those cases the corporation had, before the exaction held unconstitutional, entered the state with its permission to do local business and pursuant to that permission had acquired property and made other expenditures. Their property and the local business were found to be so closely associated with this interstate business done there that the exaction burdened it. The exaction, although called in some of those cases a filing fee, was in each case strictly a tax; for it was imposed after the admittance of the corporation into the State. * * *” [Emphasis supplied.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State Ex Rel. Texas Co. v. Koontz