McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
309 U.S. 33 · 1940
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 12 district · 392 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 596 later decisions (88 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2018 · most notably Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (1943), United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Ass'n (1944)
48 federal appellate · 12 district · 392 state decisions — followed in 44 states
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 · Gibbons v. Ogden · Simpson v. Shepard · Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan v. United States · Carter v. Carter Coal Co.
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 596 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"In imposing taxes for state purposes a state is not exercising any power which the Constitution has conferred upon Congress. It is only when the tax operates to regulate commerce between the states or with foreign nations to an extent which infringes the authority conferred upon Congress, that the tax can be said to exceed constitutional limitations. * * * Not all state taxation is to be condemned because, in some manner, it has an effect upon commerce between the states, and there are many forms of tax whose burdens, when distributed through the play of economic forces, affect interstate commerce, which nevertheless fall short of the regulation of the commerce which the Constitution leaves to Congress. A tax may be levied on net income wholly derived from interstate commerce. Non-discriminatory taxation of the instrumentalities of interstate commerce is not prohibited * *, courts are called upon to reconcile competing constitutional demands, that commerce between the states shall not be unduly impeded by state action, and that the power to lay taxes for the support of state government shall not be unduly curtailed * * *."”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a local activity, delivery of goods within the State upon their purchase for consumption.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Lying back of [Commerce Clause jurisprudence] is the recognized danger that, to the extent that the burden falls on economic interests without the state, it is not likely to be alleviated by those political restraints which are normally exerted on legislation where it affects adversely interests within the state.”
3 later decisions 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.