United States v. Rayno’s Empirical Analysis
136 F.2d 376 · 1943
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Coffman v. Federal Laboratories, Inc. (1948), United States v. Whitehurst (1964)
19 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 591 · 33 U.S.C. § 594 · 33 U.S.C. § 701A
Relies on United States v. Miller · Olson v. United States · United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. · Boom Company v. Patterson · National Brick Co. v. United States
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The proof offered by appellant, measured by these settled standards, did not establish that the property was available for use as a source of supply of shell marl. No evidence was offered to prove that any market existed, or was reasonably likely to exist in the near future, at which this shell could be profitably sold. No showing was made that any purchaser was willing to pay any more for the land, because of its shell deposits, than its market value as pasture land. The mere physical adaptability of the property to use as a source of supply of shell marl, in the absence of a market for its commercial production, did not effect an increase in its market value. In these circumstances, it was the duty of the court to exclude from the consideration of the jury all of the stricken testimony. * * *””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.