People v. La MacChia’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate · 154 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 162 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ ‘All that is necessary to be shown to entitle a witness to give an opinion is to show “that he has some peculiar means of forming an intelligent and correct judgment as to the value of the property in question . . . beyond what is presumed to be possessed by men generality.” ’ {Spring Valley W. W. v. Drinkhouse, 92 Cal. 528, 534 [ 28 P. 681 ].) The usual expert is qualified by proof of his familiarity with the property and with other property in the neighborhood, his experience in the business, his familiarity with the state of the market and of sales of similar property in the vicinity. {Estate of Ross, supra [ 171 Cal. 64 ( 151 P. 1138 )], at pp. 66-67.) A property owner, on the other hand, is generally considered competent to estimate the value of his property upon a showing that he has resided thereon for a number of years. {Long Beach City H. S. Dist. v. Stewart, supra [ 30 Cal.2d 763 , ( 185 P.2d 585 , 173 A.L.R. 249 )], at p. 772; Spring Valley W. W. v. Drinkhouse, supra, at p. 534 .) ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. People v. Pugh · City of Los Angeles v. Frew

2. ““It is well settled in this state that fair market value is to be arrived at by considering all the purposes for which the property is adaptable. In the recent case of People v. La Macchia, 41 Cal.2d 738, 751 [ 264 P.2d 15 ], it was said: ‘This court “has definitely aligned itself with the great majority of the courts in holding that damages must be measured by the market value of the land at the time it is taken, that the test is not the value for a special purpose, but the fair market value of the land in view of all the purposes to which it is naturally adapted.” ’ (And see Sacramento etc. R. R. Co. v. Heilbron, 156 Cal. 408, 412 [ 104 P. 979 ]; City of Los Angeles v. Cole, 28 Cal.2d 509, 518 [ 170 P.2d 928 ]; Orgel on Valuation Under Eminent Domain, § 30, pp. 98-102.)””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of Los Angeles v. Frew · 42 Cal. App. 4th 1215 - PEOPLE EX REL. DEPT. OF TRANSP. v. Tanczos

3. ““This court ‘has definitely aligned itself with the great majority of the courts in holding that damages must be measured by the market value of the land at the time it is taken, . . . the test is . . . the fair market value of the land in view of all the purposes to which it is naturally adapted; . . .’ (.Sacramento etc. R. R. Co. v. Heilbron, 156 Cal. 408, 412 [ 104 P. 979 ].) ‘In ascertaining the market value of real property any evidence which tends to show the physical condition of the property, the purpose for which it is employed, or any reasonable use for which it may be adapted, is competent. ’ (City of Los Angeles v. Cole, 28 Cal.2d 509, 518 [ 170 P.2d 928 ], quoting with approval from City of Beverly Hills v. Anger, 127 Cal.App. 223, 228 [ 15 P.2d 867 ].) ””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 179 Cal. App. 2d 93 - Federal Oil Co. v. City of Culver City · 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 400 - Wawrzynowicz v. City of Norwich, No. Knd &8212 Cv94-010-54-31 (Jan. 26, 1995)