Lassen v. Arizona Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department’s Empirical Analysis
1967
Citation profile
60 federal appellate · 26 district · 181 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 313 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2017 · most notably Papasan v. Allain (1986), Rosado v. Wyman (1970)
60 federal appellate · 26 district · 181 state decisions — followed in 17 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
Relies on National Labor Relations Board v. Acme Industrial Co. · Ervien v. United States · State Ex Rel. Arizona Highway Department v. Lassen · Ross v. Trustees of University
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 313 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * The restrictions were thus intended to guarantee, by preventing particular abuses through the prohibition of specific practices, that the trust received appropriate compensation for trust lands. We see no need to read the Act to impose these restrictions on transfers in which the abuses they were intended to prevent are not likely to occur, and in which the trust may in another and more effective fashion be assured full compensation.” 385 U.S. at 464 , 87 S.Ct. at 587 , 17 L.Ed.2d at 520 .”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Enabling Act unequivocally demands both that the trust receive the full value of any lands transferred from it and that any funds received be employed only for the purposes for which the land was given. ... All these restrictions in combination indicate Congress’ concern both that the grants provide the most substantial support possible to the beneficiaries and that only those beneficiaries profit from the trust. “[T]he purposes of Congress require that the Act’s designated beneficiaries ‘derive the full benefit’ of the grant.” Lassen v. Arizona, 385 U.S. at 466-468 , 87 S.Ct. at 588-589 , 17 L.Ed.2d at 521-522 .”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The grant [U.S. land given to the State] was plainly expected to produce a fund, accumulated by sale and use of the trust lands, with which the State could support the public institution designated by the Act. It was not supposed that Arizona would retain all the lands given it for actual use by the beneficiaries; the lands were obviously too extensive and too often inappropriate for the selected purposes. Congress could scarcely have expected, for example, that many of the 8,000,000 acres of its grant ‘for the support of the common schools,’ all chosen without regard to topography or school needs, would be employed as building sites [footnote omitted]. It intended instead that Arizona would use the general powers of sale and lease given it by the Act to accumulate funds with which it could support its schools.” 385 U.S. at 463 , 87 S.Ct. at 587 .”
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.