Hoffmann v. Kinealy’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 46 state decisions

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

1. “[t]he substantial value of property lies in its use.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Excelsior Springs v. Elms Redevelopment Corp. · City of Excelsior Springs v. Elms Redevelopment Corp.

2. “"To our knowledge, no one has, as yet, been so brash as to contend that such a pre-existing lawful nonconforming use properly may be terminated immediately. In fact, the contrary is implicit in the amortization technique itself which would validate a taking presently unconstitutional by the simple expedient of postponing such taking for a `reasonable' time. All of this leads us to suggest, as did the three dissenting justices in Harbison v. City of Buffalo, [ 4 N.Y.2d 533 ], [176 N.Y. S.2d 598,] 152 N.E.2d at 49 , that it would be a strange and novel doctrine indeed which would approve a municipality taking private property for public use without compensation if the property was not too valuable and the taking was not too soon, and prompts us to repeat the caveat of Mr. Justice Holmes in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 416 , 43 S.Ct. 158, 160 , 67 L.Ed. 322, 326 , 28 A.L.R. 1321 , that `[w]e 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.'"”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Joyner

3. “The words ... “may not be changed to another nonconforming use” are words of common usage, and, when afforded their “natural and ordinary meaning,” say what they mean and mean what they say-a nonconforming use may not be changed to another nonconforming use. It is patent that under [the zoning ordinance] a change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use is absolutely prohibited as opposed to being merely restricted-[The ordinance] provides no leeway whatsoever for changing from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. Instead, it absolutely prohibits changing a nonconforming use to another nonconforming use.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Sugar Creek v. Reese