Smith v. Cameron’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 22 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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘The use of a thing .is strictly and properly the employment or application of the thing in some manner. The public úse of anything is the employment or application of the thing by the public. Public use means the same as use by the public and this it seems to us is the construction the words should receive in the constitutional provision in question. The reasons which incline us to this view are: First, that it accords with the primary and more commonly understood meaning of the words; second, it accords with the general practice in regard to taking private property for public use in vogue when the phrase was first brought into use in the earlier constitutions; third, it is the only view which gives the words any force as a limitation or renders them capable of any definite and practical application. “ ‘If the constitution means that private property can be taken only for use by the public, it affords a definite guide to both the legislature and the courts. Though the property is vested in private individuals or corporations, the public retain certain definite rights to its use or enjoyment, and to that extent it remains under the control of the legislature. If no such rights are secured to the public, then the property is not taken for public use and the act of appropriation is void.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. David Jeffrey Co. v. City of Milwaukee

2. ““The courts, including this court, which take the opposing view assert that there is a distinction between a public use and a benefit to the public, and that private enterprises that give employment to many people and produce large quantities of commodities of various kinds are not necessarily public uses; and that the term ‘public use’ as used in constitutions is not synonymous with the term ‘public benefit.’ . . . The idea emphasized by this main line of decisions is expressed by Judge Cooley, thus:”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. David Jeffrey Co. v. City of Milwaukee

3. “. . the courts will always enter upon an inquiry concerning the validity of a statute authorizing the exercise of the power of eminent domain with the presumption that a use is public if the legislature has declared it to be such.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. David Jeffrey Co. v. City of Milwaukee