Case Citator › Brown v. Maryland

Brown v. Maryland

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
25 U.S. 419
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
80 of 80
Citing cases (total)
80
Treatment dates
1829–1869
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Brown v. Maryland’s foreign-import holding remains authoritative; two adverse treatments are listed below. The Supreme Court declined to extend Brown’s suggested rule to goods arriving from another state in Woodruff v. Parham; Raguet v. Wade criticized its suggested test for when imports become taxable.
More on how this was screened

Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages later rejected Low v. Austin's broad reading of Brown's dictum, while expressly preserving Brown's actual holding. All 80 flagged citations have been read.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

80 later cases cite Brown v. Maryland; 80 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Brown v. Maryland?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Supreme Court declined to extend Brown’s suggested import-tax rule to goods brought from another state, explaining that Brown’s statement on the question was not a holding.

    Woodruff v. Parham · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    The casual remark, therefore, made in the close of the opinion, “that we suppose the principles laid down in this case to apply equally to importations from a sister State,” can only be received as an intimation of what they might decide if the ease ever came before them, for no such case was then to be" decided. It is not, therefore,'a judicial decision of the question, even'if the remark was intended to apply to the first of the grounds on which that decision was placed.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Criticized

  • The Ohio court called Brown's suggested test for when imported goods become subject to state tax too vague to guide its decision.

    Raguet v. Wade · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    The case of Brown and others v. The State of Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419, is shpposed by the plaintiff to be an authority exactly in his favor; ... A rule, however, is suggested, and applied more than once in .the decision of the court, which, with great deference, is deemed too vague and indefinite, even for practical purposes, and can not be adopted as a guide in judicial determinations.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Brown v. Maryland and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace