United States v. Meyer’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

62 federal appellate · 11 district · 10 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 142 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * But the power to decide whether such a title (fee simple) was needed is, by the legislation, conferred upon the Secretary and, in the absence of bad faith or abuse of discretion, such a determination is not subject to judicial review.” (Citing cases.)”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. West, Inc. v. United States · United States v. 1,108 Acres of Land

2. ““It is insisted that the court erred in instructing the jury that for damages caused by raising the water of the river to the ordinary high water mark, the government was not liable. There is no taking from a riparian owner by the Government when water is raised to the ordinary highwater mark for the purpose of improving navigation ; whatever rights the owner possesses below ordinary highwater mark are subordinate to the rights of the public. Willink v. United States, 240 U.S. 572, 580 , 36 S.Ct. 422 , 60 L.Ed. 808 ; Barr v. Spalding, D.C., W.D.Ky., 1928, 46 F.2d 798, 799, 800 . Consequently nothing is due for impairment or use by the United States in the improvement of navigation of property within or over the bed of its navigable waters. Intangible riparian rights are subject to the same servitude. Under the Fifth Amendment mere damage to land not taken is not com-pensable as an act under the power of eminent domain.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Atkinson v. United States

3. ““Likewise the value of timber growing upon the land was immaterial. The test is the value of the real estate as a whole and separate valuation of the timber would necessitate another valuation of the land thereof. All of the facts and circumstances bearing upon the condition and nature of the land as a whole and its possible use are proper as elements bearing upon value, but separate appraisements of the different elements constituting the whole are improper.” Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States, 6 Cir., 1937, 91 F.2d 884, 887-888 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Land in Dry Bed of Rosamond Lake, Cal.