Applegate v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
25 F.3d 1579 · 1994
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently November 2016 · most notably Caldwell v. United States (2004), Fallini v. United States (1995)
17 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 28 U.S.C. § 2501 · 33 U.S.C. § 426E · 33 U.S.C. § 603A
Relies on Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. · First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles · Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Commission · United States v. Dickinson · United States v. Dow
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 74 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The expressly limited holding in Dickinson was that the statute of limitations did not bar an action under the Tucker Act for a taking by flooding when it was uncertain at what stage in the flooding operation the land had become appropriated to public use.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“because of the Government's promises to build a sand transfer plant, the landowners remained justifiably uncertain about the permanency of the . . . taking.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If suit must be brought, lest [a plaintiff] jeopardize his rights, as soon as his land is invaded, other contingencies would be running against him — for instance, the uncertainty of the damage and the risk of res judicata against recovering later for damage as yet uncertain. The source of the entire claim — the overflow due to rises in the level of the river — is not a single event; it is continuous. And as there is nothing in reason, so there is nothing in legal doctrine to preclude the law from meeting such a process by postponing suit until the situation becomes stabilized. An owner of land flooded by the Government would not unnaturally postpone bringing suit against the Government for the flooding until the consequences of inundation have so manifested themselves that a final account may be struck.”
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.