United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co.’s Empirical Analysis
229 U.S. 53 · 1913
Citation profile
263 federal appellate · 34 district · 199 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 965 later decisions (163 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978)
263 federal appellate · 34 district · 199 state decisions — followed in 34 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 Shively v. Bowlby · Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson · Shoemaker v. United States · Boom Company v. Patterson
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 965 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A ‘strategic value’ might be realized by a price fixed by the necessities of one person buying from another, free to sell or refuse, as the price suited. But in a condemnation proceeding, the value of the property to the government for its particular use is not a criterion. The owner must be compensated for what is taken from him; but that is done when he is paid its fair market value for ALL available uses and purposes. [Cases cited.]” [Emphasis supplied.]”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"This title of the owner of fast land upon the shore of a navigable river to the bed of the river * * * is subordinate to the public right of navigation, and however helpful in protecting the owner against the acts of third parties, is of no avail against the exercise of the great and absolute power of Congress over the improvement of navigable rivers. That power of use and control comes from the power to regulate commerce between the states and with foreign nations. It includes navigation and subjects every navigable river to the control of Congress. All means having some positive relation to the end in view which are not forbidden by some other provision of the Constitution are admissible. If, in the judgment of Congress, the use of the bottom of the river is proper for the purpose of placing therein structures in aid of navigation, it is not thereby taking private property for a public use, for the owner’s title was in its very nature subject to that use in the interest of public navigation.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Neither can consideration be given to probable advancement in the value of such riparian property by reason of the works to be constructed in the river by the government, or the use to which the flow of the stream might be directed by the government. The value should be fixed as of the date of the proceedings, and with reference to the loss the owner sustains, considering the property in its condition and situation at the time it is taken, and not as enhanced by the purpose for which it was taken. Kerr v. South Park Comrs., 117 U.S. 379 , 387, 6 S. Ct. 801, 29 L.Ed. 924, 927; Shoemaker v. United States, 147 U.S. 282 , 304, 305, 13 S.Ct. 361, 37 L.Ed. 170, 186, 187.”
6 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.