Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 72 U.S. 720 - City of Philadelphia v. The Collector

City of Philadelphia v. The Collector’s Empirical Analysis

72 U.S. 720 · 1866

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
32
cited 32 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
June 2024
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 19 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Flora v. United States (1960), City of Greenwood v. Peacock (1966)

25 federal appellate · 19 district · 9 state decisions

19018661870188018901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Curtis's Administratrix v. Fiedler

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

  1. ““Where the party voluntarily pays the money he is without remedy; hut if he pays It by compulsion of law, or under protest, or with notice that he intends to bring suit to test the validity of the claim, he may recover it back, if the assessment was erroneous or illegal, in an action of assumpsit for money had and received.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Undoubtedly tbe original act of 1833 was passed for the protection of officers of the revenue; and persons acting under them, charged by law with the collection of import duties, and the first proviso in the sixty-seventh section of the act of the thirteenth of July, 1866, expressly enacts that the original act shall not be so construed as to apply to cases ‘arising under any of the internal revenue acts, nor to any case in which the validity or interpretation of those acts shall be in issue.’ The effect of that proviso is to limit the scope of the original act, without repealing it, to cases arising under the acts of Congress .providing for the collection of import' duties, and to confine its operation to the purposes for which it was originally passed.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““That the provisions of the act entitled ‘An net to provide for the collection of duties ou imports,’ approved March 2, 1833, now in force, shall be taken and deemed as extended to and embracing all cases arising under the laws for the collection of internal duties, stamp duties, licenses or taxes which have boon, or may be hereafter enacted; and all persons duly authorized to assess, receive or collect such duties or tax under such laws are hereby declared to be, and to have been revenue officers within the true intent and moaning of said act and entitled to ail the exemptions, immunities, rights, benefits and privileges therein enumerated or conferred.””
    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.