City of Omaha v. Omaha Water Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 federal appellate · 56 district · 124 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 301 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The value in equity and justice must include whatever is contributed by the fact of the connection of the items making a complete and operating plant. The difference between a dead plant and a live one is a real value, and is independent of any franchise to go on, or any mere good will as between such a plant and its customers. That kind of good will, as suggested in Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19 , is of little or no commercial value when the business is, as here, a natural monopoly, with which the customer must deal, whether he will, or no. That there is a difference between even the cost of duplication, less depreciation, of the elements making up the water company plant, and the commercial value of the business as a going concern, is evident. Such an allowance was upheld in National Waterworks v. Kansas City, 62 Fed. 853 , where the opinion was by Mr. Justice Brewer. We can add nothing to the reasoning of the learned justice, and shall not try to.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. City of Ft. Smith · Fribourg Navigation Co. v. Commissioner

2. ““ . . . power to appropriate any waterworks system, plant or property already constructed, to supply the city and the inhabitants thereof with water, or any part thereof, whether lying within said city or in part without the city and within ten miles from the corporate limits of such city . . . ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. City of Bremerton v. North Pacific Public Service Co. · 8 Wash. 2d 136 - Carstens v. Public Utility District No. 1

3. ““The review of the legislation touching the power of the city, and the conclusion of the Circuit Court of Appeals from that legislation, that the city had the power to acquire the system as it existed, and has the power to operate so much of it as is intended to supply the suburban towns adjacent which may be acquired, is full and satisfactory, and meets our approval. “We are also satisfied with the conclusion of the Circuit Court of Appeals that the acquisition of the system as it existed at the time the city made its election to purchase was within the contemplation of both the city and the water company, and that the valuation of the system as an entirety was the matter which the appraisers were required to do. What we shall say upon this point will support our conclusion as to the power of the city, for the legislation upon that matter must be read in the light of the subject-matter and of all the known local conditions. The most weighty fact in this connection is, that the system was one single system, having a common source of supply and common main connections therewith. Its dismemberment is not to be thought of unless it is clear that the ordinance exercising the option is so plainly limited to the purchase of only so much of the distributing system as lay wholly within the corporate limits as to admit of no other meaning.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 8 Wash. 2d 136 - Carstens v. Public Utility District No. 1