Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 672 N.E.2d 1353 - State v. Sproles

State v. Sproles’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

63
cited by 63 later decisions
3
states following
May 2019
most recently cited

63 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Baldwin v. Reagan (1999), City Securities Corp. v. Department of State Revenue (1998)

63 state decisions

250199620002010decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Benton v. Maryland · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Louisville & Nashville Railroad v. Mottley · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson

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

  1. “principally involves collection of a tax or defenses to that collection.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Garwood v. Indiana Department of State Revenue · Kimberly K. Robinson, in her official capacity as Trustee of Calumet Township, Indiana, and as a resident and taxpayer of Calumet Township v. Indiana Department of Local Government Finance
  2. “[Thhere is no need to allow taxpayers to cireumvent the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court over original tax appeals. With the removal of the requirement that a tax be paid before it can be challenged in court, the adequacy of the current administrative scheme is not open to question.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Ispat Inland, Inc. · Garwood v. Indiana Department of State Revenue
  3. “[e]ven if the ground of the complaint is the unconstitutionality of the statute, which may be beyond the agency's power to resolve, exhaustion of administrative remedies may still be required because administrative action may resolve the case on other grounds without confronting broader legal issues.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. State Board of Tax Commissioners v. Ispat Inland, Inc. · Turner v. City of Evansville

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.