Browning v. Hooper’s Empirical Analysis
269 U.S. 396 · 1926
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 21 district · 140 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 212 later decisions (9 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2010 · most notably McGautha v. California (1971), State of Washington Seattle Title Trust Co v. Roberge (1928)
15 federal appellate · 21 district · 140 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 Hamilton-Brown Shoe Company v. Wolf Brothers & Company · Fallbrook Irrigation Dist v. Bradley · Valley Farms Co of Yonkers v. Westchester County · Illinois Central Railroad v. Decatur
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 212 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Where a local improvement territory is selected, and the burden is spread by the legislature or by a municipality to which the State has granted full legislative powers over the subject, the owners of property in the .district have no constitutional right to be heard on the question of benefits.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But it is essential to due process of law that such owners be given notice and opportunity to be heard on that question [of special benefits] where, as here, the district was not created by the Legislature, and there has been no legislative determination that their property will be benefited by the local improvement.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““There is nothing in the law to guide or to limit the action of tbe signers of the petition in selecting property to be assessed. Subject to the vote of a district of their own choice, the petitioners’ designation is absolute. The commissioners’ court has no power to modify or deny; it is bound to grant the petition.””
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.