Rindge Co v. Los Angeles County Rindge Co’s Empirical Analysis
262 U.S. 700 · 1923
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 22 district · 229 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 501 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951), Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. (1984)
81 federal appellate · 22 district · 229 state decisions — followed in 36 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.
Relationships
Relies on Shoemaker v. United States · Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant · Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley · Joslin Mfg Co v. City of Providence
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 501 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. Authorised Public Use. The nature of a use, whether public or private, is ultimately a judicial question. However the determination of this question is influenced by local conditions; and this court, while enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment, should keep in view the diversity of such conditions, and regard with great respect the judgments of state courts upon what should be deemed public uses in any state. [Cases cited.] That a taking of property for a highway is a taking for public use has been universally recognized, from time immemorial. The California Code specifically declares ‘highways’ to be ‘public uses’ for which the right of eminent domain may be exercised. Here, the Board of Supervisors, familiar with local conditions, has declared these highways to be for public uses; and the local and appellate state courts have likewise held them to be for public uses authorized by law.””
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The necessity for appropriating private property for public use is not a judicial question. This power resides in the Legislature, and may either be exercised by the Legislature or delegated by it to public officers.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Public uses are not limited, in the modern view, to matters of mere business necessity and ordinary convenience, but may extend to matters of public health, recreation and enjoyment.”
2 later decisions 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.