State v. Stabb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

59 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"... damages, if any, as will result ... from the construction of the improvements in the manner proposed ..."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Town of Newburgh v. Pecka · Elson, Etc. v. City of Indpls., Etc.

2. ““Appellant’s tendered instruction No. 16 was to the effect that in an action involving damages to property it is the duty of the party claiming damages to mitigate or lessen damages by reasonable action rather than to increase the same; and that if the ap-pellees, with knowledge of appellant’s intent to acquire the property in question for the construction of a highway, did or performed acts that would tend to increase the amount of the damages, then any damages flowing from such acts could not be recovered. Appellant insists this instruction should have been given for the reason that the evidence discloses that the retail store was closed from 1942 until the spring of 1946, and that it was reopened only after appellees had been approached by the appellant with reference to the procuring of the property on which the store was located for the construction of the highway. All this evidence discloses is that appellees had knowledge of the fact that a public improvement was proposed which would result in the taking of their land. Such knowledge did not deprive the appellees of the right in good faith to make the best use of their property. 18 Am. Jur. Eminent Domain, § 256. There is not the slightest evidence of bad faith on the part of the appellees in so reopening their store.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. Dean

3. ““It is generally held that no damages should be allowed in a case of this kind for loss of business, good will or profits from the business where only the land and not the business is being taken unless the statute under which the proceedings is had provides for such an element of damage. See 18 Am. Jur., Eminent Domain §§259, 261; 29 C. J. S., Eminent Domain §162; Mitchell v. United States (1924), 267 U. S. 341 , 69 L. ed. 644, 45 S. Ct. 293 ; 2 Lewis, Eminent Domain (3rd ed.), §727; 41 A. L. R. 1026 Note.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. ENSLEY