Richards v. Washington Terminal Co.’s Empirical Analysis
233 U.S. 546 · 1914
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 15 district · 124 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 302 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably United States v. Causby (1946), United States v. General Motors Corp. (1945)
46 federal appellate · 15 district · 124 state decisions — followed in 25 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Arthur Lynah · Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. · Transportation Company v. Chicago · Gibson v. United States · Baltimore v. Fifth Baptist Church
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 302 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * All this being granted, the special and peculiar damage to the plaintiff as a property owner in close proximity to the portal is the necessary consequence, unless at least it be feasible to install ventilating shafts or other devices for preventing the outpouring of gases and smoke from the entire length of the tunnel at a single point upon the surface, as at present. Construing the acts of Congress in the light of the 5th Amendment, they do not authorize the imposition of so direct and peculiar and substantial a burden upon plaintiff's property without compensation to him. If the damage is not preventable by the employment at reasonable expense of devices such as have been suggested, then plaintiff’s property is ‘necessary for the purposes contemplated,’ and may be acquired by purchase or condemnation.””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“noises and vibrations incident to the running of trains, the necessary emission of smoke and sparks from the locomotives, and similar annoyances inseparable from the normal and non-negligent operation of a railroad”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“such damage as is attributable to the gases and smoke emitted from locomotive engines while in the tunnel, and forced out of it by means of the fanning system through a portal located so near to plaintiffs property that these gases and smoke materially contribute to injure the furniture and to render the house less habitable than otherwise it would be,”
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.