United States v. Cox’s Empirical Analysis
190 F.2d 293 · 1951
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2002 · most notably United States v. Fuller (1973), United States v. Sowards (1966)
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 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
Applies 43 U.S.C. § 315 · 43 U.S.C. § 315B · 50 U.S.C. § 171A
Relies on United States v. Miller · Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · Olson v. United States · Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States · Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although the permits are valuable to the ranchers, they are not an interest protected by the Fifth Amendment against the taking by the Government who granted them with the understanding that they could be withdrawn * * * without the payment of compensation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Where, for any reason, property has no market resort must be had to other data to ascertain its value; and, even in the ordinary case, assessment of market value involves the use of assumptions, which make it unlikely that the appraisal will reflect true value with nicety. It is usually said that market value is what a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller. Where the property taken, and that in its vicinity, has not in fact been sold within recent times, or in significant amounts, the application of this concept involves, at best, a guess by informed persons. 5 Again, strict adherence to the criterion of market value may involve inclusion of elements which, though they affect such value, must in fairness be eliminated in a condemnation case, as where the formula is attempted to be applied as between an owner who may not want to part with his land because of its special adaptability to his own use, and a taker who needs the land because of its peculiar fitness for the taker's purposes. These elements must be disregarded by the fact finding body in arriving at `fair' market value.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““But, in our view, there can be no legally significant difference in the withdrawal of the permits for war purposes by the Secretary of the Interior, as in the Osborne case, and the cancellation of the permits by a declaration of taking in condemnation proceedings. In either case, the Government, by appropriate action, has exercised its unquestionable power to take only that which it owns, and in which the condemnee has no compensable interest. It was noncompensable hardships of this kind which prompted the Congress to amend the Taylor Grazing Act to provide for the administrative determination and payment for losses suffered from the cancellation of the grazing permits for war purposes, i. e. Section 315q, Title 43 U.S.C.A.””
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.