Reichelderfer v. Quinn’s Empirical Analysis
287 U.S. 315 · 1932
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 6 district · 88 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 235 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably United States v. Winstar Corp. (1996), United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson (1943)
65 federal appellate · 6 district · 88 state decisions — followed in 20 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
reviewedQuinn v. Dougherty (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on International News Service v. Associated Press · Bauman v. Ross · Sharp v. United States · Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge · Connecticut Mut Life Ins Co v. Spratley
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 235 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But the existence of value alone does not generate interests protected by the Constitution against diminution by the government, however unreasonable its action may be. The beneficial use and hence the value of abutting property is decreased when a public street or canal is closed or obstructed by public authority, or a street grade is raised, or the location of a county seat, or of a railroad is changed. But in such cases no private right is infringed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he will of a particular Congress * * * does not impose itself upon those to follow in succeeding years.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It has often been decided that when lands are acquired by a governmental body in fee and dedicated by statute to a park purpose, it is within the legislative power to change the use. ifc Sji % Í-S í*í “Thus construed, the dedication of the park, a declaration of a present purpose, does not imply a promise to neighboring land-owners that the park would be continued in perpetuity.””
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.