Canton Co v. Rogan’s Empirical Analysis
340 U.S. 511 · 1951
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 10 district · 60 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2018 · most notably Felder v. Casey (1988), Department of Revenue v. Ass'n of Washington Stevedoring Companies (1978)
18 federal appellate · 10 district · 60 state decisions — followed in 12 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 Brown v. Maryland · Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue · Texas Ry Co v. Interstate Commerce Commission · Fairbank v. United States · Richfield Oil Corporation v. State Board of Equalization
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“not on the goods , but on the handling of them at the port.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The objection to Maryland’s tax on the ground that interstate commerce is involved is not well taken. It is settled that a nondiscriminatory gross receipts tax on an interstate enterprise may be sustained if fairly apportioned to the business done within the taxing state, see Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Revenue, 303 U. S. 250, 255 , 58 S. Ct. 546, 548 , 82 L. ed. 823, and not reaching any activities carried on beyond the borders of the state. Where transportation is concerned, an apportionment according to the mileage within the state is an approved method. Central Greyhound Lines v. Mealey, 334 U. S. 653 , 68 S. Ct. 1260, 1266 , 92 L. ed. 1633.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“To export means to carry or send abroad; to import means to bring into the country. Those acts begin and end at water's edge. The broader definition which appellant tenders distorts the ordinary meaning of the terms. It would lead back to every forest, mine, and factory in the land and create a zone of tax immunity never before imagined. For if the handling of the goods at the port were part of the export process, so would hauling them to or from distant points or perhaps mining them or manufacturing them. The phase of the process would make no difference so long as the goods were in fact committed to export or had arrived as imports.”
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.