Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 311 Pa. 436 - McGarrity v. Commonwealth

McGarrity v. Commonwealth’s Empirical Analysis

1933

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
April 1978
most recently cited

28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1978 · most notably Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission v. Colburn (1940), Heil v. Allegheny County (1938)

28 state decisions

14019331940195019601970decided

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 Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co. · Eaton v. B. C. & M. R. R. · Sugar Notch Borough · Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Bridge · Westmoreland Chemical & Color Co. v. Public Service Commission

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

  1. ““A statute can not authorize the taking of private property for public use without just compensation; otherwise the act would be unconstitutional: Article I, section 10 of the Constitution, supra. The Constitution does not bar the enactment of a statute authorizing the taking of such property with compensation, and if, in the taking, consequential damages result, the statute may provide for just compensation to be made for such damages. If a statute does provide for compensation for consequential damages, the legislative intent so to do must be clearly set forth in the title of the act.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““The owner is without remedy unless the legislature provides one. . . . Claims for consequential damages are not within the class of damages comprehended by a taking of property under eminent domain. . . . The title of the act shows no attempt to impose liability for such damage on the State; . . . such damages were entirely omitted from the title.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.