United States v. River Rouge Improvement Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

256 federal appellate · 24 district · 72 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 487 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We are of opinión that an increase in the value of the remaining portion of any parcel of land caused by its frontage on the widened river, carrying a right of immediate access to and use of the improved stream, would constitute a special and direct benefit within the meaning of the statute, as distinguished from a benefit common to all the lands in the vicinity. * * * This is in accordance with the rule recognized by this court and established by the weight of authority in the state courts in reference to special benefits to lands abutting upon a new or widened street. * * * ‘The kind of benefit, which is not allowed to be estimated * * * is that which comes from sharing in the common advantage and convenience of increased public facilities, and the general advance in value of real estate in the vicinity by reason thereof. * + * The advantages of more convenient access to the particular lot of land in question, and of having a front upon a more desirable avenue, are direct benefits to that lot, giving it increased value in itself. * * * Such advantages are direct and special. * * * ’ ””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hendler v. United States · Wabash Ry. Co. v. City of St. Louis

2. ““On the hearing of any appeal, certiorari, writ of error, or motion for a new trial, in any case, civil or criminal, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. Great Southern Lumber Co. · McCandless v. United States

3. ““The present ease is not controlled by the provision of section 269 of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act of February 26, 1919 [28 USCA § 391; Comp. St. § 1246], that in an appellate proceeding judgment shall be given after an examination of the entire record, ‘without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.’ We need not enter upon a discussion of the divergent views which have been expressed in various Circuit Courts of Appeals as to the effect of the act of 1919. It suffices to say that since the passage of this act, as well as before, an error which relates, not to merely formal or technical matters, but to the substantial rights of the parties — especially when embodied in the charge to a jury — is to be held a ground for reversal, unless it appears from the whole record that it was harmless and did not prejudice the rights of the complaining party.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Williams v. Great Southern Lumber Co. · St. Clair v. United States