United States v. Westinghouse Electric & Manufacturing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
339 U.S. 261 · 1950
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 4 district · 27 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 151 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2012 · most notably Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), United States v. Pewee Coal Co. (1951)
65 federal appellate · 4 district · 27 state decisions
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. Westinghouse Electric & Mfg. Co. (from First Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. General Motors Corp. · United States v. Petty Motor Co. · Sinclair Refining Co. v. Jenkins Petroleum Process Co. · Mortensen v. United States · United States v. Petty Motor 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 151 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An award based on removal costs will of course be delayed until it is known whether the Government's occupancy has exhausted the tenant's leasehold.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. 266.33 Acres of Land · The United States of America v. Merchants Matrix Cur Syndicate, Inc., and Intertype Corporation, Cross-Claimants-Appellees. Intertype Corporation, Cross-Claimant-Appellee v. Clark-Congress Corporation, Cross-Defendant-Appellant. Merchants Matrix Cut Syndicate, Inc., Cross-Claimant-Appelllee v. Clark-Congress Corporation, Cross-Defendant-Appellant. The Advertising Checking Bureau, Inc., Cross-Claimant-Appellee v. Clark-Congress Corporation, Cross-Defendant-Appellant“when there is an entire taking of a condemnee's property, whether that property represents the interest in a leasehold or a fee, the expenses of removal or of relocation are not to be included in valuing what is taken.”
1 later decision 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.