Brooks-Scanlon Corporation v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
265 U.S. 106 · 1924
Citation profile
119 federal appellate · 25 district · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 444 later decisions (69 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2012 · most notably Olson v. United States (1934), United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson (1943)
119 federal appellate · 25 district · 63 state decisions — followed in 20 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 Simpson v. Shepard · Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States · United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. · Bluefield Water Works & Improvement Co. v. Public Service Commission · State of Missouri Southwestern Bell Telephone Co v. Public Service Commission of Missouri
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 444 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““* * * And, if the taking precedes the payment of compensation, the owner is entitled to such addition to the value at the time of the taking as will produce the full equivalent of such value paid contemporaneously. Interest at a proper rate is a good measure of the amount to be added. Seaboard Air Line Ry. [Co.] v. United States, supra; United States v. Benedict, 261 U.S. 294, 298 , 43 Sup. Ct. 357, 67 L. Ed. 662 ; United States v. Brown, 263, U.S. 78, 44 Sup. Ct. 92, 68 L. Ed. [171], decided November 12, 1923.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whenever the United States shall cancel, modify, suspend, or requisition any contract, make use of, assume, occupy, requisition, acquire, or take over any plant or part thereof, or any ship, charter, or material, in accordance with the provisions hereof, it shall make just compensation therefor, to be determined by the President; and if the amount thereof, so determined by the President, is unsatisfactory to the person entitled to receive the same, such person shall be paid seventy-five per centum of the amount so determined by the President, and shall be entitled to sue the United States to recover such further sum as, added to said seventy-five per centum, will make up such amount as will be just compensation therefor, in the manner provided for by section twenty-four, paragraph twenty, and section one hundred and forty-five of the Judicial Code.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ Determination of just compensation is to be-based on the fact that claimant’s contract "and its rights and interest thereunder were expropriated, and that it is entitled to have their value at the time of the taking. The value of such ships at the time of requisition, and the then probable value at the time fixed for delivery, the contract price,.the payments made and to be made, the time to elapse before completion and delivery, the possibility that by reason of the Government’s action in control of materials,, etc., the contractor might not be able to complete the ship at the date fixed for performance, the loss of use of money to- be sustained, the amount of other expenditures to be made between the time, of requisition and delivery, together with other pertinent facts, are to be taken into account and given proper weight to determine the amount claimant lost by the taking.””
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.