12 Wash. 2d 1 - State v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““When the state or other public body prosecutes such a proceeding to appropriate private property for the construction at some future time of a public improvement, naturally, it is assumed that the work will be done in a proper manner without negligence; and the property owner is entitled only to such compensation and damages as can reasonably be foreseen as the result of the improvement constructed in that manner. But where, as in the instant case, the public work for which the private property is to be appropriated has been done before the amount of damages has been judicially assessed, then the owner is not limited to damages which could have been foreseen, but may recover all damages which come within the provision of Art. I, § 16, of the constitution, that ‘No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or private use without just compensation having been first made, or paid in to court for the owner.’ [citations omitted]. In the case last cited, this court said: ‘Where as in the case at bar, damages are assessed after the works have been constructed, we think the proper measure of gross damages is the value of the part taken together with all dam ages to the remainder whether traceable to proper or negligent construction”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 25 Ariz. App. 127 - City of Tucson v. Gastelum

2. “"We may accept the holding of the Jorguson case to the effect that [article 1, section 16] has sole reference to such taking or damaging as is contemplated in the exercise of the power of eminent domain and is a mere limitation upon the otherwise unlimited sovereign power to take or damage private property for a public use; and yet it must follow that, whenever property is thus taken, voluntarily or involuntarily, by the sovereign state or by those to whom it has delegated this sovereign power, the courts must look only to the taking, and not to the manner in which the taking was consummated. . . . "The great mass of our cases, as hereinbefore reviewed, seem to so hold, and . . . the only inharmony arises from the Casassa [v. Seattle, 75 Wash. 367 , 134 P. 134 P. 1080 (1913)] and the Jorguson cases and those which attempt to follow them. In the beginning they were a not unjustified attempt to draw a distinction which does exist, but the line drawn was too fine, and results show that it leads to confusion. So far as out of harmony with what is here said, those cases are overruled." Wong Kee Jun, at 504-05.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 56 Wash. App. 275 - Lambier v. City of Kennewick

3. “[Article 1, section 16] was never intended to apply to consequential or resultant damages not anticipated in, nor a part of, the plan of a public work. It was never intended to apply to damages resulting to private property from the negligent or wrongful use of public property.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 56 Wash. App. 275 - Lambier v. City of Kennewick