Bauman v. Ross’s Empirical Analysis
167 U.S. 548 · 1897
Citation profile
209 federal appellate · 64 district · 292 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 942 later decisions (106 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2017 · most notably Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations (1974), United States v. Miller (1943)
209 federal appellate · 64 district · 292 state decisions — followed in 44 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States · Davidson v. New Orleans · Hagar v.
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 942 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“specially and directly increased in value by the public improvement,”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It was objected to the validity of section 15 that it commits the assessment of benefits noon lands, whether within or without the particular subdivision benefited by the establishment of a new highway to ‘the same jury’ which estimates the compensation or damages under the previous sections for taking lands within the subdivision for the purpose of the highway. Some confusion lias perhaps arisen from designating the tribunal of 7 men which is to estimate the damages and to assess the benefits as ‘a jury,’ when it is in truth an inquest or commission appointed by the court under authority of the act of Congress, and differing from an ordinary jury in consisting of less than 12 persons and in not being required to act with unanimity. * * * By the Constitution of the United States the estimate of the just compensation for property taken for the public use under the right of eminent domain is not required to be made by a jury, but may be intrusted. by Congress to commissioners appointed by a court or by the executive, or to an inquest consisting of more or fewer men than an ordinary jury.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The constitution of the United States contains no express prohibition against considering benefits in estimating the just compensation to be paid for private property taken for the public use; and, for the reasons and upon the authorities above stated, no such prohibition can be implied; and it is therefore within the authority of congress, in the exercise of the right of eminent domain, to direct that, when part of a parcel of land is appropriated to the public use for a highway in tbe District of Columbia, the tribunal vested by law with tbe duty of assessing tbe compensation or damages due to tbe owner, whether for tbe value of the part taken, or for any injury to the rest, shall take into consideration, by way of lessening tbe whole or either part of the sum due him, any special and direct benefits, capable of present estimate and reasonable computation, caused by the establishment of the highway to tbe part not taken.””
4 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.