Herrington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 district · 5 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Land Use Board of Appeals shall review the land use decision or limited land use decision and prepare a final order affirming, reversing or remanding the land use decision or limited land use decision.”). 6 . The following amounts to the Henington court’s claimed simplification of the damages calculation: "Boiled to its essence, the formula may be summarized as follows: The court first multiplied the maximum value of the Property (i.e., assuming approval of the 32-unit application, $1.3 million) by one-third (i.e., the district court's calculation of the probability of the application's approval). The court then subtracted from the product the purported undeveloped value of the Property ($490,000.00). Next, the court multiplied the difference by the product of the interest rate (i.e., based on the amount the money could have earned) and the duration of the delay. Finally, the court added to the product whatever increased development costs were likely to have resulted from the delay.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 688 F. Supp. 2d 1193 - David Hill Development, LLC v. City of Forest Grove

2. “[Defendant City of Los Angeles (‘the City’) hereby offers to allow judgment to be taken against it and in favor of plaintiffs as follows: 1. In the amount of $10,100 to plaintiff Matthew Dowd; 2. In the amount of $10,100 to plaintiff David Saltsburg; 3. In the amount of $5,100 to plaintiff Peter Demian; - 4. In the amount of $5,100 to plaintiff ' Edward La Grossa; 5. In the amount of $5,100 to plaintiff Anthony Brown; 6. In the amount of $5,100 to plaintiff Nathan Pino; 7. In the amount of $5,100 to plaintiff Louie Garcia; 8. In the amount of $5,100 to plaintiff Rene Castro; and 9. Costs incurred prior to the date of this offer by plaintiffs which shall include attorneys’ fees in an amount to be determined by the Court. Acceptance by less than all plaintiffs shall be deemed a rejection of this offer. This Rule 68 offer does not constitute an admission of liability by or on behalf of the City, and the City expressly denies liability for any amount. (Id. at 3).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 28 F. Supp. 3d 1019 - Dowd v. City of Los Angeles

3. “At any time more than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party for the money or property or to the effect specified in the offer, with costs then accrued. If within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance together with proof of service thereof and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment. An offer not accepted shall be deemed withdrawn and evidence thereof is not admissible except in a proceeding to determine costs. If the judgment finally obtained is not more favorable than the offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the making of the offer. The fact that an offer is made but not accepted does not preclude a subsequent offer.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 361 F. Supp. 2d 1171 - Doe Ex Rel. Doe v. Keala