United States v. Petty Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
327 U.S. 372 · 1946
Citation profile
111 federal appellate · 16 district · 91 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 364 later decisions (25 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2021 · most notably United States v. United Mine Workers of America (1947), First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles (1987)
111 federal appellate · 16 district · 91 state decisions — followed in 34 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States v. Petty Motor Co. (from Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. General Motors Corp. · United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson · United States v. Petty Motor Co. · Mitchell 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 364 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * it has come to be recognized that just compensation is the value of the interest taken. This is not the value to the owner for his particular purposes or to the condemnor for some special use but a so-called `market value.' It is recognized that an owner often receives less than the value of the property to him but experience has shown that the rule is reasonably satisfactory. Since `market value' does not fluctuate with the needs of the condemnor or condemnee but with general demand for the property, evidence of loss of profits, damage to good will, the expense of relocation and other such consequential losses are refused in federal condemnation proceedings.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * We are dealing here with a clause for automatic termination of the lease on a taking of property for public use by governmental authority. With this type of clause, at least in the absence of a contrary state rule, the tenant has no right which persists beyond the taking and can be entitled to nothing.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the whole or any part of the demised premises shall be taken by Federal, State, county, city, or other authority for public use, or under any statute, or by right of eminent domain, then when possession shall be taken thereunder of said premises, or any part thereof, the term hereby granted and all rights of the Lessee hereunder shall immediately cease and terminate, and the Lessee shall not be entitled to any part of any award that may be made for such taking, nor to any damages therefor except that the rent shall be adjusted as of the date of such termination of the Lease.” (Enfasis suplido.) United States v. Petty Motor Co., supra, págs. 375-376 esc. 4.”
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.