Gorieb v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
274 U.S. 603 · 1927
Citation profile
92 federal appellate · 21 district · 272 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 453 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978), Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
92 federal appellate · 21 district · 272 state decisions — followed in 34 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 Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Yick Wo v. Hopkins · Cannon v. United States · Crowley v. Christensen · Dahnke-Walker Milling Co. v. Bondurant
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 453 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is hard to see any controlling difference between regulations which require the lot owner to leave open areas at the sides and rear of his house and limit the extent of his use of the space above his lot and a regulation which requires him to set his building a reasonable distance back from the street. Each interferes in the same way, if not to the same extent, with the owner's general right of dominion over his property. All rest for their justification upon the same reasons which have arisen in recent times as a result of the great increase and concentration of population in urban communities and the vast changes in the extent and complexity of the problems of modern city life.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““TVe cannot, of course, construe the ordinance as meaning that the power may be thus exerted; nor may we assume in advance that it 3vill be exercised by the council capriciously, arbitrarily or with inequalit3\ It will be time enough to complain rvhen, if ever, the power shall he thus abused.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.”
3 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.