Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

14 federal appellate · 4 district · 189 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 281 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““But respondent insists that * * * there is no local activity by respondent which generates or which relates to the mail orders here involved. Yet these orders are still a part of respondent’s Iowa business. The fact that respondent could not be reached for the tax if it were not qualified to do business in Iowa would merely be a result of the ‘impotence of state power.’ Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., supra [ 311 U. S. 435 , 61 S. Ct. 246 , 85 L. Ed. 267 , 130 A. L. R. 1229]. Since Iowa has extended to it that privilege, Iowa can exact this burden as a price of enjoying the full benefits flowing from its Iowa business. Cf. Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., supra. Respondent cannot avoid that burden though its business is departmentalized. Whatever may be the inspiration for these mail orders, however they may be filled, Iowa may rightly assume that they are not unrelated to respondent’s course of business in Iowa. They are nonetheless a part of that business though none of respondent’s agents in' Iowa actually solicited or placed them. Hence to include them in the global amount of benefits which respondent is receiving from Iowa business is to conform to business facts. ’ ’”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 38 Wash. 2d 663 - B. F. Goodrich Co. v. State · State Tax Commission v. General Trading Co.

2. ““Respondent, however, insists that' the duty of tax collection placed on it constitutes a regulation of and substantial burden upon interstate commerce and results in an impairment of tbe free flow of sueb commerce. It points to tbe fact that in its mail order business it is in competition with out-of-State mail order bouses wbicb need not and do not collect tbe tax on tbeir Iowa sales. But those other concerns are not doing business in tbe State as foreign corporations. Hence, unlike respondent, they are not receiving benefits from Iowa for wbicb it has tbe power to exact a price.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. J. B. Simpson, Inc. v. State Board of Tax Administration

3. “imposed on the use in this state of tangible personal property purchased ... for use in this state at the rate of two percent of the purchase price of such property. Said tax is . . . imposed iipon every person using such property within this state until such tax has been paid directly to the county treasurer, to a retailer, or to the commission. . . .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. General Trading Co. v. State Tax Commission of Iowa