State v. Carpenter’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 592 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 602 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably City of Austin v. Cannizzo (1954), Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State (2001)
3 federal appellate · 592 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 Gainesville, Henrietta & Western Railway Co. v. Hall · Alloway v. Nashville · G., C. & S. F. R'y Co. v. Fuller · Daniel v. Fort Worth & Rio Grande Railway Co. · 5 Tex. Civ. App. 36 - Parker County v. Jackson
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 602 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * As indicated above, the correct method of adducing evidence as to market value is by witnesses, after suitable qualification, giving their opinion as to the market value of the residue before and after the taking, rather than undertaking to testify to specific items of injury and damage. See Gainesville H. & W. Railway Company v. Hall, 78 Tex. 169, 175, 176 , 14 S.W. 259 , 9 L.R.A. 298 , 22 Am.St.Rep. 42 .”
22 later decisions quote this exact passage“'the price which the property would bring when it is offered for sale by one who desires, but is not obligated to sell, and is bought by one who is under no necessity of buying it'”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is a general rule that improvements situated upon the portion of land taken are to be considered as a part of the realty. They ordinarily have no market value separate from the land. Therefore, when such improvements are taken or destroyed their value can be reflected in the finding as to the value of the land taken, and evidence of their value is admissible for that purpose. As an alternative, however, if the improvements which are situated upon the portion of land taken are essential to the use and enjoyment of the remainder of the land, or if their replacement, by removal or reconstruction, is necessary in order to obviate depreciation in the value of the residue, the cost of .removal, and/or reconstruction and/or replacement may be a proper inquiry in connection with the issue of diminished market value of the remainder.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Eubank v. State · State v. Lynch
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.