The President Recorder and Trustees of the City of Cincinnati v. The Lessee of Edward White’s Empirical Analysis
31 U.S. 431 · 1832
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 138 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 213 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2018 · most notably Dickerson v. Colgrove (1879), Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois (1892)
22 federal appellate · 3 district · 138 state decisions — followed in 37 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 The Town of Pawlet v. Daniel Clark · McConnell v. Trustees of the Town of Lexington · Stiles v. Curtis
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 213 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““All public dedications' must be considered with reference to the use for which they are made, and streets in a town or city may require a more enlarged right over the use of the land, in order to carry into effect the purposes intended, than may be necessary in an appropriation for a highway in the country; but the principle, so far as respects the right of the original owner to disturb the use,, must rest on the same ground, in both cases, and applies equally to the dedication of the common as to the streets. It was for the public use, and the convenience and accommodation of the inhabitants of Cincinnati, and, doubtless, greatly enhanced the value of the private property adjoining this common, and thereby compensated the owners for the land thus thrown out as public grounds. And after being thus set apart for public use, and enjoyed as such, and private and individual rights acquired with reference to it, the law considers it in the nature of an estoppel in pais, which precludes the original owner from revoking such dedication. It is a violation of good faith to the public, and to those who have acquired private property with a view to the enjoyment of the use thus publicly granted.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““This is a possessory action, and the plaintiff, to entitle himself to recover, must have the right of possession; and whatever takes away this right of possession will deprive him of the remedy by ejectment.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““An ejectment,” says he, “is a possessory remedy, and only competent where the lessor of the plaintiff may enter; and every plaintiff in ejectment must show a right of possession as well as of property.””
2 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.