Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 393 U.S. 117 - Whyy, Inc. v. Borough of Glassboro

Whyy, Inc. v. Borough of Glassboro’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

157
cited by 157 later decisions
19
cited 19 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

13 district · 102 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 157 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Western and Southern Life Insurance Company v. State Board of Equalization of California (1981), Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp. (1976)

13 district · 102 state decisions — followed in 12 states

480196819701980199020002010decided

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 Raley v. Ohio · Southern Railway Co. v. Greene · Hanover Fire Insurance v. Harding · Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Glander

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

  1. “This Court has consistently held that while a State may impose conditions on the entry of foreign corporations to do business in the State, once it has permitted them to enter, ‘the adopted corporations are entitled to equal protection with the state’s own corporate progency, at least to the extent that their property is entitled to an equally favorable ad valorum tax basis.’”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““New Jersey has denied the appellant a tax exemption which it accords other nonprofit corporations solely because of the appellant’s foreign incorporation. . Nor have the appellees advanced any other distinction between this appellant and domestic nonprofit corporations which would justify the inequality of treatment.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “appellant has not been `accorded equal treatment, and the inequality is not because of the slightest difference in [New Jersey's] relation to the decisive transaction, but solely because of the different residence of the owner.'”
    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.