Nortz v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
294 U.S. 317 · 1935
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 9 district · 38 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 195 later decisions (32 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2015 · most notably Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath (1951), United States v. Winstar Corp. (1996)
47 federal appellate · 9 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 14 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.
Relationships
Relies on Norman v. Baltimore & or · Legal Tender Cases Knox v. Lee Parker · Horowitz v. United States · Juilliard v. Greenman · United States v. Ames
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 195 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The President shall determine the amount of the fair and just compensation to be paid for any property requisitioned and taken over pursuant to this Act * * * , but each such determination shall be made as of the time it is requisitioned * * *, in accordance with the provision for just compensation in the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. If, upon any such requisition of property, the person entitled to receive the amount so determined by the President as the fair- and just compensation for the property is unwilling to accept tbe same as full and complete compensation for such property he shall be paid 50 per centum of such amount and shall be entitled to sue the United States in any * * * district court of the United States in the manner provided by sections 24(20) and 145 of the Judicial Code (U.S.C., 1934 ed., title 28, secs. 41(20) and 250) for an additional amount which, when added to the amount so paid to him, he considers to be fair and just compensation for such property.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The asserted basis of plaintiff’s claim for actual damages is that, by the terms of the gold certificates, he was entitled, on January 17, 1984, to receive gold coin. It is plain that he cannot claim any better position than that in which he would have been placed had the gold coin then been paid, to him. But, in that event, he would have been required, under the applicable legislation and orders, forthwith to deliver the gold coin to the Treasury. Plaintiff does not bring himself within any of the stated exceptions. [Italics ours.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Congress had power ‘to appropriate unto the Government outstanding gold bullion, gold' coin and gold certificates.’ . . . Authority ‘to compel all- residents of this country to deliver unto the Government all gold bullion, gold coins and gold certificates in their possession.’ These powers could not be successfully challenged.””
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.