Hickey v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 federal appellate · 7 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The final assignment of error asserts that the trial court refused to hear certain evidence of depreciation, of the condemned property admissible on the issue of replacement cost. Replacement cost is admissible as-evidence of value in condemnation proceedings and was so employed by the eondemnees in the instant ease. The eondemnees, however, based' their case primarily upon market value of the condemned property, and introduced evidence of replacement value only incidentally. “The United States is correct in stating that when replacement cost is used as evidence of value depreciation must be taken into account. United States v. Boston Cape Cod & N. Y. Canal Co., 1 Cir., 1921, 271 F. 877, 889 ; In re United States Commission, 1924, 54 App.D.C. 129 , 295 F. 950, 954-959 . But at no time when the eondemnees introduced evidence of replacement cost did the United States attack that evidence because depreciation had not been, taken into account. The United States could of course have objected at the time but did not. The assignment will not be considered as constituting reversible error since it lacks the foundation of an objection in the court below.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 205 F. Supp. 91 - United States v. 206.82 Acres of Land · United States v. Bamberger

2. ““The point at issue is the relative weight to be given to the recent prior sales of the property condemned and to recent sales of other, comparable property. As between the two, it is the position of the United States that a prior sale of the precise property condemned was, as a matter of law, entitled to more weight, than sales of comparable property. -3Í -X- * -X- * * “While it is true that prior sales of the condemned property eliminate any question as to whether another sale was of a comparable piece of property, nevertheless the comparison of sales of other properties have their advantages too. For example, the sale of another property may be closer in time to the date of the taking, and therefore would reflect more accurately the condition of the market at the time of the taking. In the instant case sales of other properties which took place within a few months of February 6, 1951 were testified to.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 205 F. Supp. 91 - United States v. 206.82 Acres of Land · United States v. Acres of Land More or Less Situate in Newton and Searcy Counties Arkansas G 49-115

3. ““* * * The phrase 'forced sale’ is used in the law of condemnation to describe a sale of property which is inadmissible as evidence of value because elements of compulsion so affected the seller that the sale could not be said to be fairly representative of market value at the time made. The conception of a forced or compulsive sale includes force or compulsion as a result of some kind of legal process. Thus sales on foreclosure or execution are treated as forced sales. Baetjer v. United States, 1 Cir., 1943, 143 F. 2d 391, 397 . But the compulsion may also be that created by business circumstances. For example, a property taken in discharge of a debt may be considered a forced sale, where the creditor had little choice in the matter. See Landquist v. City of Chicago, 1902, 200 Ill. 69 , 65 N. E. 681 . But compare Sargent Barge Line, Inc. v. New town Creek Towing Co., D. C. E.D.N.Y. 1932 (The Welfare), 1 F. Supp. 585 . A forced sale is one which has no probative value whatever and therefore must be excluded from evidence. In the instant case, evidence of the 1948 sale of the condemned property came into the record without objection. Therefore it should not be argued that the trial court treated this sale as a ‘forced sale’ within the meaning of that phrase as strictly defined by precedent.” =k * * “Nevertheless, the condemnees did and do point out some features of the 1948 sale which constituted some evidence at least that Girard was not entirely a free agent in completing th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Goodman v. State Roads Commission