Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 F.2d 804 - Nicholson v. Weaver

Nicholson v. Weaver’s Empirical Analysis

194 F.2d 804 · 1952

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
7
states following
September 1988
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently September 1988

7 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions

601952196019701980decided

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 · A. W. Duckett & Co. v. United States · Eagle Lake Improvement Co. v. United States · 23 Tracts of Land v. United States · Carlock v. United States

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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““A chief factor in evaluating Nicholson’s interest at the time of its taking by the Government was his existent sole and exclusive right under the express terms of the lease to purchase Parcel Eight for $4000. at the very time that it had a market value of $7000., as authoritatively found and fixed by the jury in the condemnation action. This right became vested on October 16, 1944, and remains intact as a compensable interest in the fund provided as compensation for the taking of Parcel Eight and all interests therein. “When the lease containing the option to purchase covenant was taken by the Government it still had about eighteen months to run before all contractual rights and obligations between the lessor and lessee thereunder terminated. The action of the condemnor did not abrogate such rights. It operated to transfer the potency of them from Parcel Eight to the compensatory fund or award. Phillips v. United States, 7 Cir., 151 F. 2d 645 ; Eagle Lake Improvement Co. v. United States, 5 Cir., 160 F. 2d 182 .””
    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.