Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 F.2d 751 - Meadows v. United States

Meadows v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

144 F.2d 751 · 1944

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
4
states following
April 2005
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently April 2005 · most notably Holdridge v. United States (1960), Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Commission (1962)

27 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

1801944195019601970198019902000decided

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 Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States · A. W. Duckett & Co. v. United States · United States v. Dunnington · Lovejoy v. United States · Edmands v. City of Boston

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

  1. ““ * * *, we are of the opinion that the judge below was correct in holding that in this proceeding the Government was entitled to have the value of the property, as a whole, fixed by the jury. The Government was seeking to take the prop erty for a lawful use and was not interested in the conflicting claims of owners as to the value of their respective interests. The taking was not of the rights of designated persons in the property but of the property itself. ‘ * * * an unqualified taking in fee by eminent domain takes all interests and as it takes the res is not called.upon to specify the interests that happen to exist.’ Duckett & Co. v. United States, 266 U.S. 149 , 45 S.Ct. 38 , 69 L.Ed. 216 .” 144 F.2d 752, 753 .”
    3 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.