Morrison v. Clackamas County’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 district · 17 state decisions

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

1. ““According to the more modern authorities, any destruction, restriction or interruption of the common and necessary use and enjoyment of the property of a person for a public purpose constitutes a ‘taking’ thereof. [Citing cases.] “When the current or flow of a stream of water is obstructed or diverted from its natural course for a public use, so that it invades and totally destroys private property or materially decreases its value, it amounts to a taking within the meaning of the state and federal constitutions. Theiler v. Tillamook County, 75 Or. 214 ( 146 P. 828 ); Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166 ( 20 L. Ed. 557 ); United States v. Lynah, 188 U.S. 445 ( 23 S. Ct. 349 , 47 L. Ed. 539 ); White v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 229 Pa. 480 ( 78 Atl. 1035 , 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1040); Conger v. Pierce County, 116 Wash. 27 ( 198 P. 377 , 18 A.L.R. 393 ); 1 Lewis on Eminent Domain, (3d Ed.) 86, § 78. “It is not necessary that the owner of the property be actually dispossessed or that the property be completely destroyed in order to constitute a taking within the meaning of the constitutional provisions. [Citing cases.] “In an action of this character it is no defense-that there was no specific intention on the part of defendant to appropriate plaintiff’s property, but the defendant must be held to have intended to do those things which are the natural and ordinary consequences of his act. Doubtless the defendant county intended to construct the jetty. The natural consequence, of cour”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tomasek v. Oregon State Highway Commission · Emery v. State

2. ““The facts alleged in the complaint show that the property of plaintiff was, by reason of the construction of the jetty by the county, subjected to the destruction alleged for a public use, namely, to protect the county highway and the county bridge, without just compensation. We think the use or destruction of the property amounted to a taking for public use within the meaning of article 1, section 18 of the constitution of Oregon. The action of the county constituted a taking within the meaning of the constitution just as much as if the county had taken the dirt or soil which was washed away from plaintiff’s land and used it for widening the highway which was intended to be benefited by the construction of the jetty. The county is bound by the natural consequence of its acts, whether the result was contemplated or not.” (Italics ours.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tomasek v. Oregon State Highway Commission

3. ““# # * and every man shall have remedy by due course of law for injury done him in his person, property, or reputation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tomasek v. Oregon State Highway Commission