Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 308 U.S. 271 - Danforth v. United States

Danforth v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

308 U.S. 271 · 1939

Citation profile

807
cited by 807 later decisions
35
cited 35 times by the Supreme Court
35
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

219 federal appellate · 41 district · 213 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 807 later decisions (35 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980), First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles (1987)

219 federal appellate · 41 district · 213 state decisions — followed in 35 states

15401939194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 41

Relies on Bauman v. Ross · Shoemaker v. United States · Tucker v. Alexander · Brown v. United States

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

  1. “incidents of ownership. They cannot be considered as a 'taking' in the constitutional sense.”
    29 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “mere enactment of legislation which authorizes condemnation of property cannot be a taking.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “... [I]t is undisputed that ‘[since] compensation is due at the time of taking, the owner at that time, not the owner at an earlier or later date, receives the payment’____ [However], [t]he passage of title does not necessarily determine the date of ‘taking.’ The usual rule is that if the United States has entered into possession of the property prior to the acquisition of title, it is the former event which constitutes the act of taking. It is that event which gives rise to the claim for compensation ...”
    5 later decisions 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.