Dameron v. Brodhead’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 18 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 143 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2012 · most notably Kern-Limerick, Inc. v. Scurlock (1954), Sullivan v. United States (1969)
62 federal appellate · 18 district · 20 state decisions
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 Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania · United States v. Allegheny County Pa · James v. Dravo Contracting Co. · Graves v. People of State of New York O'Keefe · United States v. Public Utilities Commission
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 143 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“supplementary power such as this statute must be upheld. Pittman v. Home Owners' Corp., 308 U.S. 21 , 32-33 [60 S. Ct. 15, 84 L.Ed. 11]; Federal Land Bank v. Bismarck Co., 314 U.S. 95 , 102-04 [62 S.Ct. 1, 86 L.Ed. 65]. Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co., supra, [342 U.S.] at 234 [72 S.Ct. at 258, 96 L.Ed. 257]. What has been said in no way affects the reserved powers of the states to tax. For this statute merely states that the taxable domicile of servicemen shall not be changed by military assignments. This we think is within the federal power.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In fact, though the evils of potential multiple taxation may have given rise to this provision, Congress appears to have chosen the broader technique of the statute carefully, freeing servicemen from both income and property taxes imposed by any state by virtue of their presence there as a result of military orders. It saved the sole right of taxation to the state of original residence whether or not that state exercised the right.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * The power of Congress to withhold tax immunity is clear. But to date the power of Congress to create a tax immunity has been narrowly confined. It stems from "the power to preserve and protect functions validly authorized." See Carson v. Roane-Anderson Co., 342 U.S. 232, 234 , 72 S.Ct. 257, 258 , 96 L.Ed. 257 [261]. Up to the present the Court has never held that the private affairs of a federal employee can be made public affairs by Congress and immune from state taxation. The question was indeed reserved in Graves v. New York, supra 306 U.S. [466] at 478, 479 [ 59 S.Ct. 595 at 597 , 83 L.Ed. 927 ]. As Mr. Justice Frankfurter stated in his concurring opinion, id., 306 U.S. at 492 , 59 S.Ct. at 604 , "Whether Congress may, by express legislation, relieve its functionaries from their civic obligations to pay for the benefits of the State governments under which they live is a matter for another day." The federal property used by the soldier, his activities as a federal employee, every phase of the functions he performs for the Army are immune from state taxation because his work is the work of the national government. But the wages that he makes, as Graves v. New York (US) supra, held, can be taxed on a non-discriminating basis by the states. So can his real and personal property. For in his private capacity a federal employee is no different from any other citizen. He receives protection and benefits from the society which the states create and maintain. Their police, t”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.