West v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.’s Empirical Analysis
295 U.S. 662 · 1935
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 11 district · 113 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 228 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2025 · most notably Federal Power Commission v. Hope Natural Gas Co. (1944), Federal Power Commission v. Natural Gas Pipeline Co. (1942)
44 federal appellate · 11 district · 113 state decisions — followed in 25 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 Hurtado v. People of the State of California · Smyth v. Ames · Simpson v. Shepard · Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust 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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[the] rough and ready approximation of value.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The established principle is that as the due process clauses (Amendments 5 and 14) safeguard private property against a taking for public use without just compensation, neither Nation nor State may require the use of privately owned property without just compensation. When the property itself is taken by the exertion of the power of eminent domain, just compensation is its value at the time of the taking. So, where by legislation prescribing rates or charges the use of the property is taken, just compensation assured by these constitutional provisions is a reasonable rate of return upon that value. To an extent value must be a matter of sound judgment, involving fact data. To substitute for such factors as historical cost and cost of reproduction, a ‘translator’ of dollar value obtained by the use of price trend indices, serves only to confuse the problem and to increase its difficulty, and may well lead to results anything but accurate and fair. This is not to suggest that price trends are to be disregarded; quite the contrary is true. And evidence of such trends is to be considered zvith all other relevant factors. St. Louis & O’Fallon Ry. Co. v. United States, 279 U.S. 461 , 485, 49 S.Ct. 384 , 73 L.Ed. 798 ; Clark’s Ferry Bridge Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 291 U.S. 227 , 236, 54 S.Ct. 427 , 78 L.Ed. 767 .” (Italics supplied.)”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is true that any just valuation must take into account changes in the level of prices. We have therefore held that where the present value of property devoted to the public service is in excess of original cost, the utility company is not limited to a return on cost. Conversely, if the plant has depreciated in value, the public should not be bound to allow a return measured by investment. Of course the amount of that investment is to be considered along with appraisal of the property as presently existing, in order to arrive at a fair conclusion as to present value, for actual cost, reproduction cost and all other elements affecting value are to be given their proper weight in the final conclusion.””
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.