Weitz v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
26 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 2009 · most notably Bottrell v. American Bank (1989), NEW SUN BUSINESS PARK, LLC v. Yuma County (2009)
26 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 Allen English v. Territory of Arizona Victor S Griffith · Howard Park Co. v. City of Los Angeles · People Ex Rel. Howlett v. Mayor & Common Council · 120 Cal. App. 2d 242 - Howard Park Co. v. City of Los Angeles · Towers v. City of Tacoma
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * Nevertheless, the frontage method is sometimes a convenient method for estimating the benefits to property and may result in a practical adjustment of proportional benefits. However, since the front foot rule is merely an approximate method of measuring benefits, it is well established that when apportionment according to benefits is required by statute the frontage method should not be applied where its application would result in an assessmfent in substantial excess of benefits, or where it would not be a fair standard by which to measure benefits. English v. Territory of Arizona, 214 U.S. 359 , 29 S.Ct. 658 , 53 L.Ed. 1030 . * * * ” 102 Ariz. at 42 , 424 P.2d at 170 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““The superintendent shall, as soon as the contractor has fulfilled his contract to the satisfaction of the superintendent, estimate . . . upon the lots within the district, the benefits arising from the work and projected to each lot. He shall thereupon make an assessment to cover the sum due for the work performed and specified in the contract, including incidental expenses, and shall assess upon and against the lots the total amount of the costs and expenses of the work. In so doing the superintendent shall assess the total sum upon the several lots, each respectively in proportion to the benefits to be received by each lot.” (emphasis added)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““But, there.never has been and probably never will be a perfectly equitable distribution of the assessment burden, so statutes or methods for the apportionment of assessments are not to be stricken down merely because they ‘fail to attain the unattainable.’ All that is required of them by constitutional law is that they apportion the burden of assessments with approximate equality, upon a reasonable basis of classification, and with due regard to the benefits to the individual property owners.” 102 Ariz. at 43 , 424 P.2d at 171 .”
2 later decisions 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.