Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 347 U.S. 340 - Miller Bros. v. Maryland

Miller Bros. v. Maryland’s Empirical Analysis

1954

Citation profile

638
cited by 638 later decisions
38
cited 38 times by the Supreme Court
41
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

70 federal appellate · 12 district · 483 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 638 later decisions (38 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Quill Corporation v. North Dakota Heitkamp (1992), Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota (1959)

70 federal appellate · 12 district · 483 state decisions — followed in 41 states

125019541960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Pennoyer v. Neff · James v. Dravo Contracting Co. · Coe v. Town of Errol · Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co. · Clark v. Paul Gray, Inc.

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 638 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “some definite link, some minimum connection, between a state and the person, property or transaction it seeks to tax.”
    21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If there is some jurisdictional fact or event to serve as a conductor, the reach of the state’s taxing power may be carried to objects of taxation beyond its borders. When it has the taxpayer within its power or jurisdiction, it may sometimes, through him, reach his extraterritorial income or transactions. On the other hand, if it has jurisdiction of his taxable property or transactions, it may sometimes, through these, reach the nonresident.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"the occasional delivery of goods sold at an out-of-state store with no solicitation other than the incidental effects of general advertising. Here was no invasion or exploitation of the consumer market in Maryland.” Miller Brothers, 347 U.S. at 347 , 98 L. Ed. at 749, 74 S. Ct. at 540 .”
    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.