Hampton v. Richland County’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2012
11 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 Bertman v. J a Kirsch Co · Fasano v. Board of County Com'rs of Washington Cty. · Golden v. City of Overland Park · Rush v. City of Greenville · James v. City of Greenville
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A classification of property should be upheld as constitutional, absent evidence that the classification is either unnecessary or confiscatory. See Golden v. Planning Bd. of Town of Ramapo, 30 N.Y. (2d) 359, 334 N.Y.S. (2d) 138, 285 N.E. (2d) 291, 63 A.L.R. (3d) 1157 (1972), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S. 1003 , 93 S.Ct. 436 , 34 L.Ed. (2d) 294 (1972) (ordinance limiting the use of property will not be held unconstitutional unless it is shown to be unreasonable in terms of necessity or to have caused such a diminution in value as to be tantamount to confiscation). Here, the owners, as it was their burden to do, offered no evidence that the classification suffered from either constitutional infirmity. See Bob Jones University v. City of Greenville, 243 S.C. 351 , 133 S.E. (2d) 843 (1963), appeal dismissed, 378 U.S. 581 , 84 S.Ct. 1913 , 12 L.Ed. (2d) 1036 (1964) (burden of proving invalidity of zoning ordinance is on the party attacking it).”
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.