Sharp v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

203 federal appellate · 16 district · 167 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 580 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Oral and not binding offers are so easily made and refused in a mere passing conversation, and under circumstances involving no responsibility on either side, as to cast no light upon the question of value. It is frequently very difficult to show precisely the situation under which these offers were made. In our judgment they do not tend to show value, and they are unsatisfactory, easy of fabrication, and even dangerous in their character as evidence upon this subject. Especially is this the case when the offers are proved only by the party to whom they are alleged to have been made, and not by the party making them.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Missouri Baptist Hospital v. United States · United States v. An Easement & Right-Of-Way Over 1.58 Acres of Land

2. ““It is, at most, a species of indirect evidence of the opinion of the person making such offer as to the value of the land. He may have so slight a knowledge on the subject as to render his opinion of no value, and inadmissible for that reason. * * * There is no opportunity to cross-examine the person making the offer, to show these various fad s. Again, it is of a nature entirely too uncertain, shadowy, and speculative to form any solid foundation for determining the value of the land which is sought to be taken in condemnation proceedings.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Emerald Oil Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue · St. Joe Paper Co. v. United States

3. ““The owner offered to prove the probable use the government ■ would make of the land for military purposes for which it was taken; also, that the use of the land for such military purposes would damage and depreciate the remaining .and adjoining land; also, that if the land to be taken was used by the government for military purposes it would endanger the adjoining land of the owner for a long distance and make the removal of his buildings necessary. These offers were rejected, and the court held that the jury should not take into account prospective damages to the remaining and adjoining land of the owner, arising .from the future use of the land sought to be taken from him for military purposes * * *. “The important question is as to the admissibility of evidence of damages to the remaining lands of the owner which would probably flow from any particular and probable use by the government of the land1 to be taken. It is said by the plaintiff in error that just compensation consists not only in an award of the value of the lands which are taken, but also of any damage that may result to the portion of the tract which remains, on account of such taking and on account of the uses to which the land taken may, or probably will, be put, and he cites many cases to show the correctness of the rule which he asserts. “Its correctness may be conceded, hut what we have to decide is whether the facts in this case bring it within the rule itself. We must see, therefore, what those facts ”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. United States · United States v. 26.81 Acres of Land