Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Alderson’s Empirical Analysis
324 U.S. 182 · 1945
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 130 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2019 · most notably Hanson v. Denckla (1958), Swain v. State of Alabama (1965)
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 58 state decisions — followed in 19 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 Snowden v. Hughes · Lisenba v. People of State of California · Whitney v. People of State of California · Sioux City Bridge Co. v. Dakota County · John Hendrick v. State of Maryland
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 130 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he Equal Protection Clause 'applies only to taxation which in fact bears unequally on persons or property of the same class.'”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The States have very wide discretion in the laying of their taxes. . . . Of course, the States, in the exercise of their taxing power, are subject to the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. But that clause imposes no iron rule of equality, prohibiting the flexibility and variety that are appropriate to reasonable schemes of state taxation. The State . . . is not required to resort to close distinctions or to maintain a precise, scientific uniformity with reference to composition, use or value.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nordlinger v. Hahn“It is plain that the Fourteenth Amendment does not preclude a state from placing notes and receivables in a different class from personal property used in agriculture and the products of agriculture, including livestock, and taxing the two classes differently, even though the state places them in a single class for other purposes of taxation.”
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.