Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt’s Empirical Analysis
324 U.S. 652 · 1945
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 15 district · 128 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 344 later decisions (69 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945), Hoffa v. United States (1966)
49 federal appellate · 15 district · 128 state decisions — followed in 22 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. A case is still cited after being overruled — to note the reversal, distinguish it, or in dissent. 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
Applies 48 U.S.C. § 1236A · 48 U.S.C. § 1238 · 48 U.S.C. § 1238A · 7 U.S.C. § 608A
Relies on Norris v. State of Alabama · Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc. · Truax v. Corrigan · Brown v. Maryland · Coe v. Town of Errol
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 344 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The Constitution confers on Congress the power to lay and collect import duties, Art. I, § 8, and provides that `no State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws * * *.' Art. I, § 10, cl. 2. These provisions were intended to confer on the national government the exclusive power to tax importations of goods into the United States. That the constitutional prohibition necessarily extends to state taxation of things imported, after their arrival here and so long as they remain imports, sufficiently appears from the language of the constitutional provision itself and its exposition by Chief Justice Marshall in Brown v. Maryland, supra [ 12 Wheat. 419 , 6 L.Ed. 678 ]. * * * "It is obvious that if the states were left free to tax things imported after they are introduced into the country and before they are devoted to the use for which they are imported, the purpose of the constitutional prohibition would be defeated. * * * It is evident, too, that if the tax immunity of imports, commanded by the Constitution, is to be reconciled with the right of the states to tax goods after their importation has become complete and they have become a part of the common mass of property within a state, `there must be a point of time when the prohibition ceases, and the power of the state to tax commences.' Brown v. Maryland, supra, 12 Wheat. (U.S.) [419] 441, 6 L.Ed. 678 ”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ * * * when the importer has so acted upon the thing imported, that it has become incorporated and mixed up with the mass of property in the country, it has, perhaps, lost its distinctive character as an import, and has become subject to the taxing power of the State; but while remaining the property of the importer, in his warehouse, in the original form or package in which it was imported, a tax upon it is too plainly a duty on imports to escape the prohibition in the constitution.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[T]hings imported are imports entitled to the immunity conferred by the Constitution; that that immunity survives their arrival in this country and continues until they are sold, removed from the original package, or put to the use for which they are imported”. (Citing cases.)”
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.