Long v. Shirley’s Empirical Analysis
1941
Citation profile
25 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2018 · most notably Rose v. State of California (1942), 131 W. Va. 45 - Strouds Creek & Muddlety Railroad v. Herold (1947)
25 state decisions
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 Bauman v. Ross · McCoy v. Union Elevated Railroad · Pickens County v. Jordan · Rudder v. Limestone County · Conecuh County v. Carter
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The instruction requested by the plaintiff in error and refused by the court told the commissioners that in fixing his damages they should take into consideration these items of expense, and the inconvenience to him in the future operation of the farm resulting from the construction of the new highway. In our opinion the instruction was proper and should have been given. “It is well settled that the cost of fencing and like expenses necessary to adjusting the landowner’s property to the new situation created by the construction of a highway are proper elements of damages. Heninger v. Peery, supra (102 Va., at page 900); 18 Am. Jur., Eminent Domain, §§ 268, 269, pp. 909, 910. “The same is true of the inconvenience which the landowner will suffer in the future operation of his property. 18 Am. Jur., Eminent Domain, § 266, p. 906.” 177 Va. at 415 , 14 S. E. 2d at 381 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In all cases under the provisions of this article, the enhancement, if any, in value of the remaining property of the landowner by reason of the construction or improvement contemplated or made by the Commissioner, shall be offset against the damage, if any, resulting to such remaining property of such landowner, by reason of such construction or improvement. But such enhancement in value shall not be offset against the value of the property taken. And if such enhancement in value shall exceed the damage, there shall be no recovery over against the landowner for such excess.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. May v. Malcolm
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.