United States v. Twin City Power Co.’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
205 federal appellate · 27 district · 37 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 420 later decisions (30 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2021 · most notably Kaiser Aetna v. United States (1979), Andrus v. Allard (1979)
205 federal appellate · 27 district · 37 state decisions — followed in 11 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. Twin City Power Company and William P. Dauchy, Its Mortgagee, United States of America v. Twin City Power Company and William P. Dauchy, Its Mortgagee, United States of America v. Twin City Power Company and William P. Dauchy, Its Mortgagee (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 16 U.S.C. § 791A (§ 321 of the Federal Power Act of 1920)
Relies on United States v. Miller · Berman v. Parker · Olson v. United States · Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States · Reagan v. Farmers' Loan & Trust 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 420 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The interest of the United States in the flow of a navigable stream originates in the Commerce Clause. That Clause speaks in terms of power, not of property. But the power is a dominant one which can be asserted to the exclusion of any competing or conflicting one.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. the landowner here seeks a value in the flow of the stream, a value that inheres in ' the Government’s servitude and one that under our decisions the Government can grant or withhold as it chooses. It is no answer to say that payment is sought only for the location value of the fast lands. That special location value is due to the flow of the stream; and if the United States were required to pay the judgments below, it would be compensating the landowner for the increment of value added to the fast lands if the flow of the stream were taken into account. ( 350 U.S. at 225-226 , 76 S.Ct. at 261 ; emphasis in original).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i)t is not for (us) ... to substitute (our) judgments for congressional decisions on what is or is not necessary for improvement or protection of navigation.”
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.