Guerard v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1974
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2020
13 state decisions
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 Bacich v. Board of Control · Breidert v. Southern Pacific Co. · Brock v. State Highway Commission · Thomsen v. State · State, Etc. v. Tolliver
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The first question for our decision is whether the court or the jury has the duty to decide whether compensable damage has been caused to the Guerard property. We hold that this is a preliminary decision to be made by the court, as a matter of law. * * * * * * “We start with the basic proposition that some actions of governmental agencies, which incidentally affect private property, do not give rise to a right to damages. Such actions are sometimes described as being within the police power of the State. ‘Generally, the rule is that where the State or its agencies in the exercise of the State’s sovereign power do an act which they are authorized to do, the fact that incidental injuries may accrue . to an individual does not necessarily give that person a right of action. The private right must give way to the public right, and unless the law specifically gives the right of recovery then no recovery can be had.’ King v. Stark County, 67 N.D. 260 , 271 N.W. 771 (1937).” Guerard v. State, 220 N.W.2d at 527-28 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Private property shall not be taken or damaged for public use without just compensation having been first made to, or paid into court for the owner. . . . ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““Constitutional or statutory provisions for compensation for property damaged or injured are not intended, however, to reach every possible injury that may be occasioned by a public improvement, and not all damage or every diminution in value of property caused by a public improvement entitles the owner to recover. Depreciation in value alone will not sustain a claim for damages; it must result from a cause which the law regards as a basis for damages; and it is generally held that the interference which will require compensation must be a physical interference with the property itself or with the right which the owner has to the legal and proper use of it, and not merely such as causes discomfort, inconvenience, annoyance, or apprehension, or even loss of business. “It has similarly been held that the damage clause of the constitution has no application to depreciation in market value of land caused by a public improvement in close proximity thereto, where there is no physical injury to the property or impairment of any right appurtenant thereto, if the public use is not of such character as to constitute a nuisance. While the disturbance of a property owner’s rights need not be a physical disturbance or direct injury of the tangible object of property rights, it must be a disturbance of a right which the owner enjoys in connection with his ownership of the tangible object.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.