United States v. Dow’s Empirical Analysis
1958
Citation profile
213 federal appellate · 39 district · 61 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 841 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2023 · most notably Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations (1974), First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles (1987)
213 federal appellate · 39 district · 61 state decisions — followed in 21 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
reviewedthe decision below (from Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 10 U.S.C. § 2663 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 33 U.S.C. § 594 · 50 U.S.C. § 171
Relies on Catlin v. United States · United States v. Miller · United States v. General Motors Corp. · United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. · United States v. Dickinson
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 841 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he owner at the time [of the taking] rather than the owner at an earlier or later date, is the one who has the claim and is to receive payment.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“results in an alteration in the property interest taken— from full ownership to one of temporary use and occupation. In such cases compensation would be measured by the principles normally governing the taking of a right to use property temporarily.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Broadly speaking, the United States may take property pursuant to its power of eminent domain in one of two ways: It can enter into physical possession of property without authority of a court order; or it can institute condemnation proceedings under various Acts of Congress providing authority for such takings. Under the first method — physical seizure — no condemnation proceedings are instituted, and the property owner is provided a remedy under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346 (a) and 1491, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346 (a), 1491, to recover just compensation. See Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U.S. 95 , 104, 52 S.Ct. 267 , 269, 76 L.Ed. 637 .”
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.