United States v. Carmack’s Empirical Analysis
329 U.S. 230 · 1946
Citation profile
176 federal appellate · 54 district · 122 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 616 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2025 · most notably Berman v. Parker (1954), Block v. North Dakota Board of University and School Lands North Dakota Board of University and School Lands (1983)
176 federal appellate · 54 district · 122 state decisions — followed in 27 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. Carmack (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 480 · 16 U.S.C. § 516 · 16 U.S.C. § 715F · 16 U.S.C. § 715G · 16 U.S.C. § 724 · 40 U.S.C. § 3113
Relies on Shoemaker v. United States · Boom Company v. Patterson · Kohl v. United States · Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kan Ry Co
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 616 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * These Acts [the General Condemnation Act and the Public Buildings Act of 1926] were natural means for Congress to adopt in putting its constitutional powers into use on a scale commensurate with the size of the nation and the need of the time. Neither Act imposed expressly any limitations upon the authority of the officials designated by Congress to exercise its power of condemnation in procuring sites for public buildings deemed necessary by such officials to enable the Government to perform certain specified functions. * * * “The power of eminent domain is essential to a sovereign government. If the United States has determined its need for certain land for a public use that is within its federal sovereign powers, it must have the right to appropriate that land. Otherwise, the owner of the land, by refusing to sell it or by consenting to do so only at an unreasonably high price, is enabled to subordinate the constitutional powers of Congress to his personal will. * * * ” 329 U.S. at 236 , 67 S.Ct. at 254 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“without adequate determining principle or was unreasoned.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“express Congressional waiver” of the Supremacy Clause. Thus, the FDIC's Supremacy Clause argument is not entirely relevant, except for historical purposes. 6 . The relevant portion of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that, "... nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just 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.