Davis v. Pima County’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently May 2011
15 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 15 Cal. 3d 508 - HFH, LTD. v. Superior Court · Arverne Bay Construction Co. v. Thatcher · City of Phoenix v. Oglesby · 38 Colo. App. 44 - Gold Run, Ltd. v. BOARD OF COUNTY COM'R
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Davis , the court of appeals stated: When a zoning ordinance is confiscatory it results in a “taking of the property and is, in effect, the exercise of the power of eminent domain.” * * * * * * However, though appellants established a “taking” if the board’s action were not undone, this does not mean they are entitled to money damages. * * The proper remedy when zoning is confiscatory is either to seek by declaratory judgment to invalidate the general zoning ordinance or to challenge the particular rezoning determination by means of a special action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“They stated that the partnership was not entitled to damages on either a theory of inverse eminent domain or a general tort theory. The court further stated that: * * * though appellants established a”
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.