State v. Hale’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 244 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 256 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably City of Keller v. Wilson (2005), Texas Department of Parks & Wildlife v. Miranda (2004)
6 federal appellate · 244 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 Jacobs v. United States · Georgia v. City of Chattanooga · United States v. Jones · Rigney v. City of Chicago · Chicago v. Taylor
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 256 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The language used in Section 17 of Article 1 of the Constitution, supra, which says that no person's property shall be taken or damaged for public use without adequate compensation being made, has no exceptions or limitations attached thereto. It is a clear, definite statement of the rule which prevails in this State, which controls all the departments of the State government; and the liability for adequate compensation for private property taken or damaged for public use is not based upon the ground that the act of taking or damaging such property was done negligently or intentionally. * * *"”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"No person's property shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person."”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Generally this is the accepted rule, but there are certain exceptions to such rule. The general rule is that private property cannot be taken or damaged for public use without adequate compensation being paid therefor; and when such property is taken or damaged, such compensation shall first be made or secured by a deposit of money. The Constitution makes an exception of this rule in favor of the State. Under this express power the State can take or damage private property for public use without payment in advance therefor, and leave the owner thereof without payment until the Legislature sees fit to make an appropriation for same. “ * * * The Constitution expressly declares that adequate compensation shall be made to the owner for such damages, but leaves him to await the pleasure of the State to make such payment. * * * “In a great majority of the jurisdictions interest is allowed as part of the damages or compensation to the owner whose property has been damaged or taken under the power of eminent domain provided for under the provisions of the Constitution.””
1 later decision 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.