Thomson v. Pacific Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 16 district · 58 state decisions

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

1. ““But we think there is a clear distinction between the means employed by the government, and the property of agents employed by the government. Taxation of the agency is taxation of the means; taxation of the property of the agent is not always, or generally, taxation of the means. No one questions that the power to tax all property, business and persons, within their respective limits, is original in the states and has never been surrendered.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. James v. Dravo Contracting Co. · United States Spruce Production Corp. v. Lincoln County

2. ““But we are not awáre of any case in which the real estate, or other property of a corporation not organized under an act of Congress, has been held to be exempt, in the absence of express legislation to that effect, to just contribution, in common with other property, to the general expenditure for the common benefit, because of the employment of the corporation in the service of the government. “It is true that some of the reasoning in the case of McCulloch v. Maryland seems to favor the broader doctrine. But the decision itself is limited to the case of the bank, as a corporation created by a law of the United States, and responsible* in the use of its franchises, to the government Of the United States. “And even in respect to corporations organized under the legislation of Congress, we have already held, at this term, that the implied limitation upon State taxation, derived from the express permission to tax shares in the National banking associations, is to be so construed as not to embarrass the imposition or collection of State taxes to the extent of the permission fairly and liberally interpreted. [National Bank v. Commonwealth (ante, 353); Lionberger v. Rouse (ante, 468).] “We do not think ourselves warranted, therefore, in extending the exemption established by the ease of McCulloch v. Maryland beyond its terms. We cannot apply it to the case of a corporation deriving its existence from State law, exercising its franchise under State law, and holding its property wi”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boss v. Polk County · Large Oil Co. v. Howard

3. ““But it will be safe to conclude, in general, in reference to persons and state' corporations employed in government service, that when Congress has not interposed to protect their property from state taxation, such taxation is not obnoxious to that objection.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. James v. Dravo Contracting Co. · Taber v. Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co.