Cincinnati v. Vester’s Empirical Analysis
281 U.S. 439 · 1930
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 12 district · 116 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 296 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2022 · most notably Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman (1984), Hagans v. Lavine (1974)
78 federal appellate · 12 district · 116 state decisions — followed in 23 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedCity of Cincinnati v. Vester (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Siler v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · United States ex rel. Attorney General of the United States v. Delaware & Hudson Co. · Liverpool, New York & Philadelphia Steamship Co. v. Commissioners of Emigration · Fallbrook Irrigation District v. Bradley · Rindge Co v. Los Angeles County Rindge Co
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 296 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he question what is a public use is a judicial one.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Section 10 , article XVIII , of the Ohio Constitution, provides that a municipality acquiring property for public use may, in furtherance of that use, appropriate excess lands over that actually to be occupied by the improvement. Under that article, a municipality is required, not only to define specifically in its legislation the purpose of the appropriation, but it must also sustain such requirement by proof of its necessity. While a court may not disturb the reasonable discretion exercised by municipal authorities, as to the amount of excess property necessary to be appropriated in furtherance of a public use, it will not sanction an arbitrary and unreasonable taking of private property in furtherance of the contemplated use.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"We are thus asked to sustain the excess appropriation in these cases upon the bare statements of the resolution and ordinance of the city council, by considering hypothetically every possible, but undefined, use to which the city may put these properties, and by determining that such use will not be repugnant to the rights secured to the property owners by the Fourteenth Amendment. We are thus either to assume that whatever the city, entirely uncontrolled by any specific statement of its purpose, may decide to do with the properties appropriated, will be valid under both the state and Federal Constitutions, or to set up some hypothesis as to use and decide for or against the taking accordingly, although the assumption may be found to be foreign to the actual purpose of the appropriation as ultimately disclosed and the appropriation may thus be sustained or defeated through a misconception of fact.””
1 later decision 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.