1 Utah 2d 263 - State Ex Rel. Engineering Commission v. Peek’s Empirical Analysis
1953
Citation profile
41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently March 1994 · most notably Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Commission (1959), Stewart & Grindle, Inc. v. State (1974)
41 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
Relies on Shoemaker v. United States · Edmands v. City of Boston · Cent. Pac. R.R. v. Pearson · Brown v. Calumet River Railway Co. · Cobb v. City of Boston
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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * The statute does not give the owner the right to compensation at the date of the summons. It merely provides that the right shall be deemed to accrue at that date `for the purpose of assessing compensation and damages.' In other words, it fixes the time as of which the value of the property is to be determined. * * *"”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“"If the property shall be deemed to have been taken at the time and by reason of the service of the summons, there is force in the contention that appellants are entitled to interest from that date. But the controlling feature of section 3599 is the fixing of the time with reference to which compensation is to be computed, rather than fixing the time of the taking, or when the property shall be deemed to have been taken. * * *"”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The scope of the cross-examination of experts and other witnesses who have testified to value in land damage cases is very broad, since cross-examination is often the only protection of the opposing party against the unwarranted estimates that a certain class of mercenary experts is wont to indulge in. A witness may be asked on cross-examination any facts which would be admissible on direct examination.... A witness who has given an opinion of value may, however, in the discretion of the court, be asked questions on cross-examination, for the purpose of testing his opinion, which would be improper upon direct examination. He may, for example, be asked how far certain assumed facts would modify his judgment.... ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.