Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 309 U.S. 176 - McCarroll v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc.

McCarroll v. Dixie Greyhound Lines, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

309 U.S. 176 · 1940

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
38
cited 38 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
May 1997
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1997 · most notably Marsh v. State of Alabama (1946), United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n (1944)

7 federal appellate · 39 state decisions — followed in 11 states

660194019501960197019801990decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedDixie Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. McCarroll (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · SC Hwy. Dept. v. Barnwell Bros. · Sproles v. Binford · John Hendrick v. State of Maryland · Ogden v. Saunders

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

  1. “Our disagreement with the opinions just announced does not arise from a belief that Federal action is unnecessary to bring about appropriate uniformity in regulations of interstate commerce. Indeed, state legislation recently before this Court indicates quite the contrary. For instance, we sustained the right of South Carolina — in the absence of congressional prohibition — to regulate the width and weight of interstate trucks using her highways, even though the unassailed findings showed that a substantial amount of interstate commerce would thereby be barred from the State. South Carolina Highway Dept. v. Barnwell Bros. We did not thereby approve the desirability of such state regulations. It is not for us to approve or disapprove. We did decide that `courts do not sit as Legislatures, either state or national. They cannot act as Congress does when, after weighing all the conflicting interests, state and national, it determines when and how much the state regulatory power shall yield to the larger interests of national commerce.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. ““Since the subject taxed, gasoline introduced into the state in the tank of a vehicle, for use solely in propelling it in interstate commerce, is immune from state taxation except for a limited state purpose, the exaction of a reasonable charge for the use of its highways, it is not enough that the tax when collected is expended upon the state’s highways. It must appear on the face of the statute or be demonstrable that the tax as laid is measured by or has some fair relationship to the use of the highways for which the charge is made.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “in the exercise of its plenary constitutional control over interstate commerce, not only [to] consider whether such a tax as now under scrutiny is consistent with the best interests of our national economy, but . . . also on the basis of full exploration of the many aspects of a complicated problem [to] devise a national policy fair alike to the States and our Union.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.