Branson v. Bush’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

44 federal appellate · 16 district · 64 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 182 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““To this must be added the obvious fact that anything that develops the territory which a railroad serves must necessarily- he of benefit to It, and that no agency for such development equals that of good roads.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Thomas v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. · Atlanta & C. A. L. Ry. Co. v. City of Easley

2. ““Where, in laws creating districts for local improvements and taxation, there is such a legislative declaration as this, as to what lands within the district will be benefited by the improvement, the law with respect to the extent to which such determination may be reviewed by the courts is so well settled, and has so lately been reexamined and restated by this court, that-extended discussion of the subject is not justified. “In Spencer v. Merchant, 125 U.S. 345 , 8 S.Ct. 921 , 31 L.Ed. 763 — a decision often cited and approved — it is decided that if the proposed improvement is one which the state had authority to make and pay for by assessments on property benefited, the Legislature, in the exercise of the taxing power, has authority to determine, by the statute imposing the tax, what lands, which might be benefited by the improvement, are in fact benefited by it; and if it does so, its determination is conclusive upon the owners and the courts, and the owners have no right to be heard on the question whether their lands have be.-n benefited or not. “The subject was carefully re-examined and the law restated in cases so recent as Phillip Wagner v. Baltimore City (Leser), 239 U.S. 207 , 36 S.Ct. 66 , 60 L.Ed. 230 , and Houck v. Little River Drainage District, 239 U.S. 254 , 36 S.Ct. 58 , 60 L.Ed. 266 , with the result that the rule as we have stated it was approved, with the qualification, which was before implied, that the legislative determination can be assailed under the”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Northern Pacific Terminal Co. v. City of Portland

3. ““The applicable rules of law are settled. The Legislature of a state may, if consistent with its Constitution, establish a drainage district; may set the boundaries, and may apportion the burden by fixing the basis of assessment and of taxation. The Legislature’s determination that lands will be benefited by a public improvement for which it authorizes a special tax, is ordinarily conclusive. Its action in so doing cannot be assailed under the Fourteenth Amendment, unless it is palpably arbitrary or discriminatory.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kimama Highway Dist. v. Oregon Short Line R.