Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 247 U.S. 354 - McCoy v. Union Elevated Railroad

McCoy v. Union Elevated Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

247 U.S. 354 · 1918

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
11
cited 11 times by the Supreme Court
16
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 4 district · 59 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably Dohany v. Rogers (1930), Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co. (1922)

19 federal appellate · 4 district · 59 state decisions — followed in 16 states

250191819201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

reviewedMcCoy v. Union Elevated Railroad

Relationships

Relies on Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · Frank v. Mangum · Bauman v. Ross · Fayerweather v. Ritch · Backus v. Fort St Union Depot Co

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

  1. “‘ ‘ The fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment is that the owner shall not be deprived of the market value of his property under a rule of law which makes it impossible for him to obtain just compensation. There is no guarantee that he shall derive a positive pecuniary advantage from a public work whenever a neighbor does. It is almost universally held that in arriving at the amount of damage to property not taken allowance should be made for peculiar and individual benefits confex-red upon it; compensation to the owner in that form is permissible. And we are unable to say that he suffers deprivation of any fundamental right when a State goes one step further and permits consideration of actual benefits — 'enhancement in market value — flowing directly from a public work, although all in the neighborhood receive like advantages. In sucb case the owner really loses nothing which he had before; and it may be said with reason, there has been no real injury. ’ ’”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The just compensation required by the Constitution to be made to the owner is to be measured by the loss caused to him by the appropriation. He is entitled to receive the value of what he has been deprived of, and no more. To award him less would be unjust to him; to award him more would be unjust to the public.”
    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.