Farrington v. Tennessee’s Empirical Analysis
95 U.S. 679 · 1877
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 12 district · 111 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 347 later decisions (61 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2017 · most notably Home Building & Loan Ass'n v. Blaisdell (1934), Eisner v. Macomber (1920)
40 federal appellate · 12 district · 111 state decisions — followed in 33 states
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 M'Culloch v. State of Maryland · Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward · Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy · National Bank v. Commonwealth · Trist v. Child
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 347 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The capital stock and the shares of the capital stock are distinct things. The capital stock is the money paid or authorized or required to be paid in as the basis of the business of the bank, and the means of conducting its operations. * * * The capital stock and the shares may both be taxed, and it is not double taxation.” The bank may be required to pay the taxi out of its corporate funds, or be authorized to deduct the amount paid for each stockholder out of his dividends.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is no question before us as to the tax imposed on the shares by the charter, but the state has, by her revenue laws, imposed another and an additional tax on these same shares. This is one of those < other taxes,’ which it had stipulated to forego. The identity of the thing doubly taxed is not affected by the fact that in one case the tax is to be paid vicariously by the bank, and in the other by the owner of the share himself. The thing thus taxed is still the same, and the second tax is expressly forbidden by the contract of the parties. After the most careful consideration we can come to no other conclusion. Such, we think, must have been the understanding and intent of the parties when the charter was granted and the bank organized. Any other view would ignore the covenant that the tax specified áhoulcl be in ‘ lieu of all other taxes; ’ it would blot those terms from the context, and construe it as if they were not a part of it. ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Contracts are executed or executory. A contract is executed, wliere everything that was to he done is done, and nothing remains to be done. A grant actually made is within this category. Such a contract requires no consideration to support it. * * * ° The constitutional prohibition applies alike to both executory and executed contracts, by whomsoever made.””
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.