Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 149 F.2d 190 - United States v. Baugh

United States v. Baugh’s Empirical Analysis

149 F.2d 190 · 1945

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
September 1983
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1983

1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

6019451950196019701980decided

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 Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. United States · Jacobs v. United States · United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co. · Shoshone Tribe of Indians v. United States · Brooks-Scanlon Corporation 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 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In the present case the Government did not take a deed from the landowner as in an outright purchase, but it acquired title and possession by condemnation. The stipulation merely had the effect of relieving the Government from having to make proof as to what was just compensation and of running the risk of having an amount fixed which might be unsatisfactory. The stipulations eliminated controversies, but otherwise the condemnation suit proceeded to final judgment. There is no mention in the stipulations that interest was, or was not, included. Just compensation in condemnation censes means just compensation at the time of taking of possession, and when the parties reduced to writing a stipulation fixing just compensation there seems to be no reason to conclude that the landowner impliedly waived any legal right. In view of the- several express waivers made in the writing it will not be presumed to have contained any implied waivers of substantial constitutional rights.” (Emphasis the Court’s)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““But the Government failed to pay for seven or eight months thereafter, and there is neither proof nor presumption that the landowners intended to waive interest in the future, particularly for such an indefinite and unreasonable period, and such a waiver cannot be read into the agreement. Their right to have interest is found in the Constitution and is neither found nor lost in the contract. “The Constitution no more permits the deprivation of money without just compensation than it does the deprivation of the use of land without just compensation.” (Emphasis the Court’s)”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The foregoing stipulation is made to expedite the vesting of title in the plaintiff, the United States of America, and the payment of just compensation for such lands to the owners thereof, and it is the purpose and intent hereof to vest in the Court, without any further proceeding and notice, full authority to close such action by final judgment and to disburse the funds in accordance therewith.””
    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.