Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 148 U.S. 312 - Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States

Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

148 U.S. 312 · 1893

Citation profile

1,321
cited by 1,321 later decisions
222
cited 222 times by the Supreme Court
41
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

281 federal appellate · 91 district · 308 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,321 later decisions (222 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978), Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations (1974)

281 federal appellate · 91 district · 308 state decisions — followed in 41 states

168018931900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Boyd v. United States · Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward · County of Mobile v. Kimball · Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co.

Cited together with United States v. Miller · Olson v. United States · United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. · United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson · United States v. General Motors Corp.

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 1,321 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “full and perfect equivalent for the property taken,”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he Constitution has declared that just compensation shall be paid.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It would seem strange that if, by asserting its right to take the property, the government could strip it largely of its value * * *. In other words, by the contention this element of value exists before and after the taking, and disappears only during the very moment and process of taking. Surely, reasoning which leads to such a result must have some vice, at least the vice of injustice.”
    7 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.