Daniel’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2020 · most notably Don Laub (2003), Tiffany Family Trust Corp. v. City of Kent (2005)
2 district · 6 state decisions
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 Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council · First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles · Armstrong v. United States · Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Palazzolo rejected the state court’s “blanket rule” that would have found no taking whenever a purchaser was aware of existing land-use regulations that reduced the market value of property. But Palazzolo did not adopt the converse of that rule. That is, it did not adopt a rule that would find a taking whenever there are pre-existing restrictions on land use that reduce market value. If that were the rule, no land-use restriction would ever be safe from a takings challenge. Every new purchaser could bring a takings challenge even if there had been a taking for which the prior owner had already been compensated; if the prior owner had already litigated and lost a takings challenge to that restriction; or if the prior owner had allowed application limitations periods to lapse without creating a ripe takings claim or challenging an already-ripe claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle it to relief. All allegations of material fact are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Berg“[I]f a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation.”
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.