Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 357 U.S. 155 - United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co.

United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

533
cited by 533 later decisions
46
cited 46 times by the Supreme Court
23
states following
October 2023
most recently cited

90 federal appellate · 50 district · 85 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 533 later decisions (46 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978), Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City (1985)

90 federal appellate · 50 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 23 states

168019581960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2501

Relies on Yakus v. United States · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer · Mugler v. State of Kansas State of Kansas Tufts · United States v. Causby

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 533 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “upon the particular circumstances [in that] case.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. City of San Diego
  2. “* * * nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
    e.g. United Artists' Theater Circuit, Inc. v. City of Philadelphia · 24 Cal. 3d 266 - Agins v. City of Tiburon
  3. “We are in danger of forgetting that a strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving the desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
    e.g. Keystone Bituminous Coal Assn. v. DeBenedictis · 24 Cal. 3d 266 - Agins v. City of Tiburon

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.