Miller v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Loveladies Harbor, Inc. v. United States (1994), Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States (1994)
2 district · 5 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
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 79A · 16 U.S.C. § 79C · 40 U.S.C. § 3114 (Declaration of Taking Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 4651
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · United States v. Miller · Olson v. United States · United States v. General Motors Corp. · United States v. Thirty-Seven (37) Photographs
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“recent sales of comparable facilities in the vicinity” and not the owner's "unique need for the property”). Moreover, it is apparent that a willing buyer "being reasonably informed as to all relevant facts,” including the fact that Warwick would pay more than a million dollars to acquire the leasehold estate at the date of valuation, would not place a zero value on the lease, even though its value solely for purposes of occupancy might be zero. Contrary to the dissent’s characterization of the testimony of Riverside’s expert, he determined that "there was a clear indication of value ... (i.e., the leasehold improvements at 330 West 42nd Street [the Newmark location])” for the leasehold right given up by Riverside. 87-2 BCA ¶ 19,693 at 99,704. 3 . We note that Riverside erred in attempting to amortize $2,573,074, which it arrived at by subtracting from its estimate valued of the leasehold improvements ($2,750,000) the unam-ortized value of the old improvements, plus other directly related moving costs (in total, $177,-000). The $177,000 figure should have been subtracted from the amount Warwick paid, the latter being the “cost”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]t does not rest with Congress to say what compensation shall be paid, or even what shall be the rule of compensation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the determination of just compensation under the fifth amendment is exclusively a judicial function,”
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.