United States v. 25.406 Acres of Land’s Empirical Analysis
172 F.2d 990 · 1949
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 5 district · 34 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. (1961), People v. La MacChia (1953)
63 federal appellate · 5 district · 34 state decisions — followed in 18 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.
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Miller · Olson v. United States · Boom Company v. Patterson · Montana Railway Co. v. Warren · San Diego Land & Town Co. v. Neale
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]rtificial rules of" evidence which exclude from the consideration of the jurors matters which men consider in their everyday affairs hinder rather than help them at arriving at a just result. In no branch of the law is it more important to remember this, than in cases involving the valuation of property, where ‘at best, evidence of value is largely a matter of opinion’.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““We do not mean to say, of course, that an expert witness should be allowed to roam at large in the realms of fancy and testify at length about hypothetical developments and mythical income to be realized therefrom. When this is attempted it should be firmly suppressed because of its tendency to mislead and confuse and the waste of time involved. * * * ” See United States v. 25.406 Acres of Land, supra.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Q. Now is your opinion of this value in before condition based upon any specific plan or proposal that you might have had in mind or that Mr. Alexander might have had in mind? A. Well, I base it on what we have done on our property at Paige Avenue and 99 Freeway with development which could be done there, the filling station and motel and cafe. “Q. Do you have an idea—strike that. Would this be, sir in your opinion, what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, say, when we are talking about this fair market value in before conditions, what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, both knowing all of the adaptabilities and availability of this property, both being fully informed as to the highest and best use of the property on the date of valuation with neither being under any compulsion to sell or under any compulsion to buy? I know that's kind of a complicated thing. Do you understand what I mean? A. You mean what it would have brought on the market then? “Q. That’s right. A. In when? “Q. In the before condition on April—. A. That’s April of ‘60? “Q. That’s right. A. Well, I think it would bring a $100,000 myself. “Q. That includes, sir, does it, the improvements that were on it at that time? A. Yes. “Q. In the after condition, have you given any value to those improvements? A. You mean with it blocked off? “Q. That’s right. A. Well, the improvements would be worth very little with it blocked off.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.