Seaboard Air Line Ry Co v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 17 district · 99 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 235 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2023 · most notably City of Buffalo v. J. W. Clement Co. (1971), 38 Cal. 3d 790 - Redevelopment Agency v. Gilmore (1985)
4 federal appellate · 17 district · 99 state decisions — followed in 30 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 Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States · United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co. · United States v. State of North Carolina · United States v. Jones · United States Angarica De La Rua v. Bayard
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 235 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The requirement that `just compensation' shall be paid is comprehensive and includes all elements and no specific command to include interest is necessary when interest or its equivalent is a part of such compensation. Where the United States condemns and takes possession of land before ascertaining or paying compensation, the owner is not limited to the value of the property at the time of the taking; he is entitled to such addition as will produce the full equivalent of that value paid contemporaneously with the taking. Interest at a proper rate is a good measure by which to ascertain the amount so to be added.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 10 of the Lever Act authorizes the taking of property for the public use on payment of just compensation. There is no provision in respect of interest. Just compensation is provided for by the Constitution and the right to it cannot be taken away by statute. Its ascertainment is a judicial function.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“means substantially that the owner shall be put in as good position pecuniarily as he would have been if his property had not been taken. [Citation.]”
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.