Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 125 Mont. 159 - Tomten v. Thomas

Tomten v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

1951

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
7
states following
May 1987
most recently cited

2 district · 24 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently May 1987 · most notably Bowers v. Fulton County (1971), City of Ottumwa v. Taylor (1960)

2 district · 24 state decisions

1201951196019701980decided

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 Dohany v. Rogers · Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Warford · Montana Ore Purchasing Co. v. Boston & Montana Consolidated Copper & Silver Mining Co. · Pittsfield & North Adams Railroad v. Boston & Albany Railroad · Matter of City of Brooklyn

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

  1. “The argument runs that, since expenses have to be incurred in condemnation proceedings, such expenses must be recovered in addition to the award in order that `just compensation' for the land may be had. Practically, that is true. But it is equally true in nearly every other lawsuit. The prevailing party does not recoup his total expenses. He can tax only statutory costs, and they usually fall short of the actual costs of the litigant. In contemplation of law, however, statutory costs are full compensation, and when those are taxed in favor of the prevailing party he is presumed to be made whole.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Private roads may be opened in the manner prescribed by this chapter, but in every case the necessity of the road and the amount of all damage to be sustained by the opening thereof shall be first determined by a jury, and such amount, together with the expenses of the proceeding, shall be paid by the person to be benefited.” (Emphasis added.)”
    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.