Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 276 U.S. 272 - Miller v. Schoene

Miller v. Schoene’s Empirical Analysis

276 U.S. 272 · 1928

Citation profile

591
cited by 591 later decisions
44
cited 44 times by the Supreme Court
33
states following
October 2021
most recently cited

105 federal appellate · 36 district · 252 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 591 later decisions (44 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2021 · most notably Gault (1967), Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978)

105 federal appellate · 36 district · 252 state decisions — followed in 33 states

157019281930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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 Connally v. General Construction Co. · Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts

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 591 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[W]here the public interest is involved preferment of that interest over the property interest of the individual, to the extent even of its destruction, is one of the distinguishing characteristics of every exercise of the police power which affects property.”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We need not weigh with nicety the question whether the infected cedars constitute a nuisance according to the common law; or whether they may be so declared by statute. See Hadacheck v. [Sebastian] Los Angeles, supra, [ 239 U.S. 394 ] 411, (36 Sup. 143) [ 60 L.Ed. 348, 356 , Ann.Cas. 1917B, 927]. For where, as here, the choice is unavoidable, we cannot say that its exercise, controlled by considerations of social policy which are not unreasonable, involves any denial of due process. * * *”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “by deciding upon the destruction of one class of property [without compensation] in order to save another, which, in the judgment of the legislature, is of greater value to the public.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.