Olson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

555 federal appellate · 78 district · 350 state decisions

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 1,811 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “is entitled to be put in as good a position pecuniarily as if his property had not been taken. He must be made whole but is not entitled to more.”

   104 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. 56454 Acres of Land More or Less Monroe and Pike Counties Pennsylvania · United States v. Catlin

2. “the actual use and special adaptability of the landowners' shorelands for the flowage and storage of water, that inter alia will be available for the generation of power may be taken into consideration in ascertaining the just compensation to which the landowners are entitled.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. 1,291.83 Acres of Land · United States v. Acres of Land More or Less in County of Monroe State of R

3. ““In determining the value of land appropriated for public purposes, the same considerations are to be regarded as in a sale of property between private parties. The inquiry in such cases must be what is the property worth in the market, viewed not merely with reference to the uses to which it is at the time applied, but with reference to the uses to which it is plainly adapted; that is to say, what is it worth from its availability for valuable uses. Property is not to be deemed worthless because the owner allows it to go to waste, or to be regarded as valueless because he is unable to put it to any use. Others may be able to use it, and make it subserve the necessities or conveniences of life. Its capability of being made thus available gives it a market value which can be readily estimated. “So many and varied are the circumstances to be taken into account in determining the value of property condemned for public purposes, that it is perhaps impossible to formulate a rule to govern its appraisement in all cases. Exceptional circumstances will modify the most carefully guarded rule; but, as a general thing, we should say that the compensation to the owner is to be estimated by reference to the uses for which the property is suitable, having regard to the existing business or wants of the community, or such as may be reasonably expected in the immediate future.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson · Anderson v. Chesapeake Ferry Co.