Pike County v. Whittington’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Ordinarily no person has a vested right in maintenance of a public highway in any particular place and state owes no duty to any person to send public traffic past his door."”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Riddle v. State Highway Commission · 15 Ohio App. 2d 139 - In Re Appropriation for Hwy. Purposes of Lands of Williams

2. “These authorities point unwaveringly to the conclusion that the relocation of the highway, thereby diverting the flow of traffic from in front of appellee's place of business, is a circumstance to enter into the question of the amount of the condemnee's damage and this circumstance is one of which the jury should be informed and the question left to their ultimate decision.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 106 So. 2d 870 - Jahoda v. State Road Department · 382 So. 2d 543 - State v. Moore

3. “"Unless we can say that public roads are built primarily for the benefit of the occasional landowner along the route, rather than for the necessity and convenience of the general public, it must be said that the landowner has no vested right in the current of public travel. Nelson v. State Highway Board, supra. And, it can make no difference, as we view it, that a small portion of appellee's acreage may have been taken for the new right of way. The situation is no different from that where no portion of the land is taken, unless โ€” which is not the case here โ€” it may be said that the taking of some acreage from the whole, in some measure, and of itself, damaged the whole for the purpose for which it was reserved or used above and beyond the value to be allotted to the portion taken. "The applicable rule as to damages for diversion of traffic is the same under one situation as another we test the claimed vested right to the current of public travel by the same measure, whether twenty feet may have been taken off the back of an owner's lot without damage to the front where the flow of traffic was formerly found, or whether the relocated highway is situated twenty feet further away so that it be not necessary to take any portion of the owner's land. Obviously, the landowner's claim must rest or fall upon a decision whether she has a vested right in the flow of public travel, which once came by her door, but for which now, for the convenience of the general public, a shorter a”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Riddle v. State Highway Commission