Empresa Siderurgica Sa v. County of Merced California’s Empirical Analysis
337 U.S. 154 · 1949
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 102 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 148 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2021 · most notably Department of Revenue v. Ass'n of Washington Stevedoring Companies (1978), Kosydar v. National Cash Register Co. (1974)
27 federal appellate · 102 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Coe v. Town of Errol · Fairbank v. United States · Richfield Oil Corporation v. State Board of Equalization · C. W. Cornell v. F. E. Coyne · United States v. Hvoslef
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 148 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is the entrance of the articles into the export stream that marks the start of the process of exportation. Then there is certainty that the goods are headed for their foreign destination and will not be diverted to domestic use. Nothing less will suffice.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘. . . goods do not cease to be part of the general mass of property in the State, subject, as such, to its jurisdiction, and to taxation in the usual way, until they have been shipped, or entered with a common carrier for transpprtation to another State, or have been started upon such transportation in a continuous route or journey.’ Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, 527 . That test was fashioned to determine the validity under the Commerce Clause of a nondiscriminatory state tax. But as we noted in Richfield Oil Corp. v. State Board, 329 U. S. 69, 79 , it is equally applicable to cases arising either under Art. I, § 10, Cl. 2 (the Import-Export Clause) or under Art. I, § 9, Cl. 5, which prohibits Congress from laying any tax on ‘Articles exported from any State.’ “Under that test it is not enough that there is an intent to export, or a plan which contemplates exportation, or an integrated series of events which will end with it. See Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 504 ; Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U. S. 418 . The tax immunity runs to the process of exportation and the transactions and documents embraced in it. Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283 ; United States v. Hvoslef, 237 U. S. 1 ; Thames & Mersey Ins. Co. v. United States, 237 U. S. 19 . Delivery of packages to an exporting carrier for shipment abroad (Spalding & Bros. v. Edwards, 262 U. S. 66 ) and the delivery of oil into the hold of the ship furnished by the foreign purchaser to carry the oil abroad (Richfield Oil Corp. v”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““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 its inspection laws: ...””
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.