Batten v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
306 F.2d 580 · 1962
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 8 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Samaad v. City of Dallas (1991), Washington Market Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Trenton (1975)
11 federal appellate · 8 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 13 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 49 U.S.C. § 1301
Relies on Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · United States v. Causby · Armstrong v. United States · United States v. General Motors Corp. · United States v. Dickinson
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * governmental activities which do not directly encroach on private property are not a taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment even though the consequences of such acts may impair the use of the property.””
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he proper test to determine whether there has been a compensable invasion of the individual’s property rights in a case of this kind is whether the interference with use and enjoyment is sufficiently direct, sufficiently peculiar, and of sufficient magnitude to support a conclusion that the interference has reduced the fair market value of the plaintiffs land by a sum certain in money. If so, justice as between the state and the citizen requires the burden imposed to be borne by the public and not by the individual alone.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It also seems just as clear that the Tucker Act, Section 1346(a) (2), does grant jurisdiction since none of these claims exceeds $10,000 and they are founded upon either the Constitution, an Act of Congress or upon an express or implied contract with the United States and/or are for unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort. The Government had the obligation under the Constitution to pay just compensation. The damage to the property constituted a taking within the terms of the Constitution and it may rationably be said that the Government did take that part of the property which it damaged. It appears also that tests were made under the authority of an Act of Congress authorizing the sonic boom tests and if the agreement of the Federal Aviation Authority to pay any damage is not an express contract it is a contract implied in fact. It constituted a promise to pay.”
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.