MacVeagh v. Multnomah County’s Empirical Analysis
1928
Citation profile
2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2011
2 district · 7 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 Hurtado v. People of the State of California · John Roller v. Stephen Holly · Stuart v. . Palmer · Paulsen v. City of Portland · Anaheim Sugar Co. v. County of Orange
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Eminent domain is the power inherent in a sovereign state of taking or of authorizing the taking of any property within its jurisdiction for a public use or benefit.””
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.