Jacobs v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
290 U.S. 13 · 1933
Citation profile
207 federal appellate · 12 district · 131 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 638 later decisions (72 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics (1971), United States v. Testan (1976)
207 federal appellate · 12 district · 131 state decisions — followed in 26 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
reviewedUnited States v. Jacobs (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Cress · United States v. Arthur Lynah · Seaboard Air Line Railway Co. v. United States · United States v. North American Transportation & Trading 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 638 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Statutory recognition [of the obligation to provide just compensation is] not necessary. A promise to pay [is] not necessary. Such a promise [is] implied because of the duty to pay imposed by the [fifth] amendment.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The compensation to which the owner is entitled is the full and perfect equivalent of the property taken. It rests on equitable principles and it means substantially that the owner shall be put in as good position pecuniarily as he would have been if his property had not been taken. He is entitled to the damages inflicted by the taking. ". . . . "It is obvious that the owner's right to just compensation cannot be made to depend upon state statutory provisions. . . . The rule above referred to, that in the absence of agreement to pay or statute allowing it the United States will not be held liable for interest on unpaid accounts and claims, does not apply here. The requirement that `just compensation' shall be paid is comprehensive and includes all elements and no specific command to include interest is necessary when interest or its equivalent is a part of such compensation. Where the United States condemns and takes possession of land before ascertaining or paying compensation, the owner is not limited to the value of the property at the time of the taking; he is entitled to such addition as will produce the full equivalent of that value paid contemporaneously with the taking. Interest at a proper rate is a good measure by which to ascertain the amount so to be added."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Government contemplated the flowage of the lands, that damage would result therefrom, and that compensation would be payable. A servitude was created by reason of inter mittent overflows which impaired the use of the lands for agricultural purposes. * * * There was thus a partial taking of the lands for which the Government was bound to make just compensation under the Fifth Amendment.”
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.