A. W. Duckett & Co. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
266 U.S. 149 · 1924
Citation profile
94 federal appellate · 30 district · 46 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 259 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2012 · most notably United States v. Petty Motor Co. (1946), Phelps v. United States (1927)
94 federal appellate · 30 district · 46 state decisions — followed in 16 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 Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States · United States v. North American Transportation & Trading Co. · United States v. Cora Welch · Hill v. United States
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 259 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Ordinarily an unqualified taking in fee by eminent domain takes all interests and as it takes the res is not called upon to specify the interests that happen to exist. Whether or not for some purposes the new takers may be given the benefit of privity with the former holders, the accurate view would seem to be that such an exercise of eminent domain founds a new title and extinguishes all previous rights.” Duckett & Co. v. United States, 266 U.S. 149 , 151, 45 S.Ct. 38 , 69 L.Ed. 216 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Ordinarily an unqualified taking in fee by eminent domain takes all interest and as it takes the res is not called upon to specify the interest that happened to exist. Whether or not for some purposes the new takers may be given the benefit or privity with the former holder, the accurate view would seem to be that such an exercise of eminent domain grounds a new title and extinguishes all previous rights. * ° * In such a case we no more should expect to hear it argued that leaseholds were not to be pai,d for than that the former fee simple should not be, on the ground that it was gone and a new fee begun.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The contract was no part of the res taken and whatever might be the collateral consequences of the appropriation liability for them was not an incident of the Government's act.””
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.