Commissioner v. Ten Eyck’s Empirical Analysis
76 F.2d 515 · 1935
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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
Applies 26 U.S.C. § 2001 (Excise, Estate, and Gift Tax Adjustment Act of 1970) · 33 U.S.C. § 541
Relies on Gibbons v. Ogden · Shively v. Bowlby · Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell · South Carolina v. United States · Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Port and harbor developments have long been regarded as .governmental functions in providing for the welfare and prosperity of the people. * * * #4L 4b 4b ,2£. 4b 4b Tt* "ft* TT TT T? ■Jr “The essence of port and harbor development is to provide adequate terminal facilities. Historically, port activities have been shown to be almost universally, directly subject to the supervision of agencies of government. Commissions similar to this one, created for purposes of supervision and control of ports, in nearly all instances, have been governmental agencies, so constituted as to exercise the same kind of regulatory and supervisory functions as does the Albany Port District Commission; they either own the whole or a very large part of the water front of the port or haven. * # * “The necessity of a comprehensive plan for the organization and development of port facilities in the principal harbors of this country has been recognized, and steps have been taken to vest in the control of properly constituted governmental agencies the future development of many of its ports. A Bi-State Commission was appointed to consider the requirements of New York and New Jersey, clearly an effort within the sovereign prerogatives of the respective states. They joined in an agreement for the creation of a governmental agency and endowed that agency with adequate powers to carry out remedial measures for the alleviation of traffic congestions within, and further development of the facilities of, the P”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Harrison v. Day““The governmental character of public wharves, o-r piers as well as rights in navigable water and landing places, have been recognized by the courts. * * (citing numerous authorities). The interest of the people in navigation on the waters, and commerce over them, with their right to improvements' by the erection of wharves, docks, piers, and terminal facilities, has been regarded as creating a duty incumbent upon the state to develop .them for the benefit of the people. Illinois Central R. R. Co. v. [State of] Illinois, 146 U.S. 387 , 13 S.Ct. 110 , 36 L.Ed. 1018 .””
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.