Houck v. Little River Drainage District’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

76 federal appellate · 30 district · 223 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 492 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the power of taxation should not be confused with the power of eminent domain,”

   19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Branson v. Bush · Miller County Highway & Bridge Dist. v. Standard Pipe Line Co.

2. ““In view of the nature of this enterprise it is obvious that, so far as the Federal Constitution is concerned, the State might have defrayed the entire expense out of state funds raised by general taxation or it could have apportioned the burden among the counties in which the lands were situated and the improvements were to be made. County of Mobile v. Kimball, 102 U. S. 691, 703, 704 . It was equally within the power of the State to create tax districts to meet the authorized outlays. The legislature, unless restricted by the state constitution, can create such districts directly, or, as in this case, it may provide for their institution through a proceeding in the courts in which the parties interested are cited to appear and present their objections, if any. The propriety of a delegation of this sort was a question for the State alone. And with respect to districts thus formed, whether by the legislature directly or in an appropriate proceeding under its authority, the legislature may itself fix the basis of taxation or assessment, that is, it may define the apportionment of the burden, and its action cannot be assailed under the Fourteenth Amendment unless it is palpably arbitrary and a plain abuse. These principles have been established by repeated decisions.” (Citing authorities.) (p. 262.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Board of County Commissioners v. Robb

3. ““That no benefits had accrued or would accrue to plaintiffs’ lands either from the expenditure of the money sought to be raised by the tax or from the carrying out of the proposed plan; that a large portion of the lands in the district, and'those of plaintiffs in large part, were to be condemned for a right of way for ditches and catch basins; and that the tax had been levied against every acre within the district, as a level tax, without regard either to relative value or to benefits, or to the fact that portions of the lands would be damaged and other portions would be taken by condemnation, or that a large extent of territory, if added to the district as had been proposed, would receive the benefit of the tax without being charged with any part.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. F. B. Williams Cypress Co. v. Martin