Bertagnoli v. Baker’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently August 2011
3 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 Board of Water Commissioners v. Johnson · City of Birmingham v. Brown · Erie Railroad v. Fritsch · Public Service Co. v. City of Loveland · United States v. Threlkeld
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The right to exercise the power of eminent domain must be conferred by statute, either in express words or by necessary implication. Because such power is in derogation of common right, the acts conferring it generally should not be enlarged or extended by inference or implication. Instead, they are to be strictly construed in favor of the landowner so that no person will be deprived of the use and enjoyment of his or her property except by a valid exercise of the power.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the extent to which the power [of eminent domain] may be exercised is limited to the express terms and clear implication of the statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“in derogation of the rights of individual ownership in property.”
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.