Samuels v. McCurdy’s Empirical Analysis
267 U.S. 188 · 1925
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 6 district · 98 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 181 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2021 · most notably Anderson Nat Bank v. Luckett (1944), Ziffrin, Inc. v. Reeves (1939)
22 federal appellate · 6 district · 98 state decisions — followed in 22 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 Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · Lawton v. Steele · Cummings v. The State of Missouri · Crowley v. Christensen · North American Cold Storage Company v. City of Chicago
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 181 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““As already stated, the present case must be governed by principles that do not involve the power of eminent domain, in the exercise of which property may not be taken for public use without compensation. A prohibition * * * upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be deemed a taking or an appropriation of property for the public benefit. * * * The power which the states have of prohibiting such use by individuals of their property as will be prejudicial to the health, the morals, or the safety of the public, is not, and, consistently with the existence and safety of organized society, cannot be, burdened with the condition that the state must compensate such individual owners for pecuniary losses they may sustain, by reason of their not being permitted, by a noxious use of their property, to inflict injury upon the community. The exercise of the police power by the destruction of property which is itself a public nuisance, or the prohibition of its use in a particular way, whereby its value becomes depreciated, is very different from taking property for public use, or from depriving a person of his property without due process of law. In the one case, a nuisance only is abated; in the other, unoffending property is taken away from an innocent owner.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * It does not fix a penalty for the owner for having become possessed of the liquor. The penalty it imposes is for continuing to possess the liquor after the enactment of the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Masino · State v. Howard“As a search warrant issued, the seizure was presumably valid”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People v. Fish
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.