Griggs v. County of Allegheny Pennsylvania’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
157 federal appellate · 45 district · 340 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 791 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978), Dugan v. Rank (1963)
157 federal appellate · 45 district · 340 state decisions — followed in 33 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
Applies 49 U.S.C. § 1101 · 49 U.S.C. § 1112
Relies on Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · United States v. Causby · Chicago Co v. City of Chicago · United States v. Virginia Electric & Power 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 791 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An invasion of the `superadjacent airspace' will often `affect the use of the surface of the land itself,'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"It is argued that though there was a `taking,' someone other than respondent was the taker the airlines or the C.A.A. acting as an authorized representative of the United States. We think, however, that respondent, which was the promoter, owner, and lessor of the airport, was in these circumstances the one who took the air easement in the constitutional sense. Respondent decided, subject to the approval of the C.A.A., where the airport would be built, what runways it would need, their direction and length, and what land and navigation easements would be needed."”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““* * * A county that designed and constructed a bridge would not have a useable facility unless it had at least an easement over the land necessary for the approaches to the bridge. Why should one who designs, constructs, and uses an airport be in a more favorable position so far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned? That the instant ‘taking’ was ‘for public use’ is not debatable. * * *””
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.