Almota Farmers Elevator and Warehouse Company v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 12 district · 148 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 458 later decisions (17 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Blanchette v. Connecticut General Insurance Corporations (1974), Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation (1998)
52 federal appellate · 12 district · 148 state decisions — followed in 25 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
reviewedUnited States v. 22.95 Acres of Land (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Miller · United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson · Omnia Commercial Co. v. United States · United States v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. · United States v. Reynolds
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 458 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“what a willing buyer would pay in cash to a willing seller.”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]part from cases where ... the [g]overnment has a property interest antedating but within the bounds of its present project, it would be unjust to allow the [g]overnment to use 'salami tactics' to reduce the amount of one property owner's compensation by first acquiring an adjoining piece of property or another interest in the same property from another property owner”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The value of the buildings, machinery, and equipment in place would be substantially greater than their salvage value at the end of the lease term, and a purchaser in an open market would pay for the anticipated use of the buildings and* for the savings he would realize from not having to construct new improvements himself. (Emphasis added.) By failing to value the improvements in place over their useful life — taking into account the possibility that the lease would be renewed as well as the possibility that it might not — the Court of Appeals in this case failed to recognize what a willing buyer would have paid for the improvements.” Id. at 471-472 and 474, 93 S.Ct. at 793-794 , 13 L.Ed. 2d at 6 and 7-8.”
1 later decision 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.