Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Board of Equalization of SD’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 12 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Greenlaw v. United States (2008), Department of Revenue of Ore. v. ACF Industries, Inc. (1994)
33 federal appellate · 12 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 Martin v. Wainwright · Aloha Airlines, Inc. v. Director of Taxation of Hawaii · Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Hughes County · Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. State Ex Rel. 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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'are easy prey for State and local tax assessors' in that they are 'nonvoting, often nonresident, targets for local taxation' who cannot easily remove themselves from the locality.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) The following acts unreasonably burden and discriminate against interstate commerce, and a State, subdivision of a State, or authority acting for a State or subdivision of a State may not do any of them: (1) Assess rail transportation property at a value that has a higher ratio to the true market value of the rail transportation property than the ratio that the assessed value of other commercial and industrial property in the same assessment jurisdiction has to the true market value of the other commercial and industrial property. (2) Levy or collect a tax on an assessment that may not be made under paragraph (1) of this subsection. (3) Levy or collect an ad valorem property tax on rail transportation property at a tax rate that exceeds the tax rate applicable to commercial and industrial property in the same assessment jurisdiction. (4)Impose another tax that discriminates against a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(b) The following acts unreasonably burden and discriminate against interstate commerce, and a State, subsection of a State, or authority acting for a State or subdivision of a State may not do any of them: (1) Assess rail transportation property at value that has a higher ratio to the true market value of the rail transportation property than the ratio that the assessed value of other commercial and industrial property in the same assessment jurisdiction has to the true market value of the other commercial and industrial property. (2) Levy or collect a tax on an assessment that may not be made under paragraph (1) of this subsection. (3) Levy or collect an ad valorem property tax on rail transportation property at a tax rate that exceeds the tax rate applicable to commercial and industrial property in the same assessment jurisdiction. (4) Impose another tax that discriminates against a rail carrier.”
2 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.