United States v. Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Navigation Co.’s Empirical Analysis
338 U.S. 396 · 1949
Citation profile
167 federal appellate · 9 district · 41 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 392 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2017 · most notably United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. (1961), United States v. 56454 Acres of Land More or Less Monroe and Pike Counties Pennsylvania (1979)
167 federal appellate · 9 district · 41 state decisions — followed in 13 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 United States v. Miller · Olson v. United States · United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson · Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States · Standard Oil Co. v. Southern Pacific 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 392 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]riginal cost is well termed the `false standard of the past' where * * * present market value in no way reflects that cost.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Perhaps no warning has been more repeated than that the determination of value cannot be reduced to an inexorable rule.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"At times, however, peculiar circumstances may make it impossible to determine a `market value.' There may have been, for example, so few sales of similar property that we cannot predict with any assurance that the prices paid would have been repeated in the sale we postulate of the property taken. We then say that there is `no market' for the property in question. But that does not put out of hand the bearing which the scattered sales may have on what an ordinary purchaser would have paid for the claimant's property. We simply must be wary that we give these sparse sales less weight than we accord `market' price, and take into consideration those special circumstances in other sales which would not have affected our hypothetical buyer. And it is here that other means of measuring value may have relevance but only, of course, as bearing on what a prospective purchaser would have paid." (emphasis supplied) (338 U.S. at page 402, 70 S.Ct. at page 221 )”
3 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.