Fallbrook Irrigation Dist v. Bradley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 13 district · 277 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 358 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[What is a public use frequently and largely depends upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the particular subject-matter in regard to which the character of the use is questioned.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 32 Cal. 3d 60 - City of Oakland v. Oakland Raiders · In re Tuthill

2. ““The legislature not having itself described the district, has not decided that any particular land would or could possibly be benefited as described, and, therefore, it would be necessary to give a hearing at some time to those interested upon the question of fact whether or not the land of any owner which was intended to be included would be benefited by the irrigation proposed. If such a hearing were provided for by the act, the decision of the tribunal thereby created would be sufficient.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller & Lux, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors · Booth v. Groves

3. ““. . . Assume that the only theory of these assessments for local improvements upon which they can stand is that they are imposed on account of the benefits received, and that no land ought in justice to be assessed for a greater sum than the benefits received by it, yet it is plain that the fact of the amount of benefits is not susceptible of that accurate determination which appertains to a demonstration In geometry. Some means of arriving at this amount must be used, and the same method may be more or less accurate in different eases involving different facts. Some choice is to be made, and where the fact of some benefit accruing to all the lands has been legally found, can it be that the adoption of an ad, valorem method of assessing the lands is to be held a violation of the Federal Constitution? It seems to us clearly not. It is one of those matters of detail in arriving at'the proper and fair amount and proportion of the tax that is to be levied on the land with, regard to the benefits it has received, which is open to the discretion of the state legislature, and with which this court ought to have nothing to do. The way of arriving at the amount may be in some instances inequitable and unequal, but that is far from rising to the level of a constitutional problem and far from a case of taking property without due process of law.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. People v. Russell & Co., (S. en C.)