United States v. Lucinda Grizzard’s Empirical Analysis
219 U.S. 180 · 1911
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 21 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 314 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably United States v. Miller (1943), United States v. Dickinson (1947)
104 federal appellate · 21 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 Bauman v. Ross · United States v. Arthur Lynah · Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. · Sharp v. United States · Transportation Company v. Chicago
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 314 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whenever there has been an actual physical taking of part of a distinct tract of land, the compensation to be awarded includes not only the market value of that part of the tract appropriated, but the. damage to the remainder resulting from that taking, embracing, of course, injury due to the use to which the part appropriated is to be devoted.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The ‘just compensation’ thus guaranteed (by the Fifth Amendment) obviously requires that the recompense to the owner for the loss caused to him by the taking of a part of a parcel, or single tract of land, shall be measured by the loss resulting to him from the appropriation. If, as the court found below, the flooding and taking of a part of the plaintiff’s farm has depreciated the usefulness and value of the remainder, the owner is not justly compensated by paying for only that actually appropriated, and leaving him uncompensated for the depreciation over benefits to that which remains.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Consequently, when part only of a parcel of land is taken for a highway, the value of that part is not the sole measure of compensation as damages to be paid to the owner; but the incidental injury or benefit to the part not taken is also to be considered. When the part not taken is left in such shape or condition as to be itself of less value than before, the owner is entitled to additional damages on that account.””
2 later decisions 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.