Alamo Land & Cattle Co. v. Arizona’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 18 district · 85 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 199 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2024 · most notably Papasan v. Allain (1986), Lassiter v. Department of Social Services of Durham County North Carolina (1981)
44 federal appellate · 18 district · 85 state decisions — followed in 15 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. 2,562.92 Acres of Land, More or Less, situate in Yuma & Mohave Counties (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. General Motors Corp. · United States v. Reliable Transfer Co. · United States v. Petty Motor Co. · Almota Farmers Elevator and Warehouse Company v. United States · United States v. Fuller
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 199 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It has long been established that the holder of an unexpired leasehold interest in land is entitled, under the Fifth Amendment, to just compensation for the value of that interest when it is taken upon condemnation by the United States. [Citations omitted.]””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“What the Act requires-and we think that this is clear from Ervien and Lassen-is that the trust is to receive, at the time of its disposition of any interest in the land, the then full value of the particular interest which is being dispensed. [[Image here]] '... The New Mexico-Arizona [EJnabling Act has a protective provision against the initial setting of lease rentals at less than fair rental value. This is specifically prohibited by § 28. The prohibition is given bite by the further very drastic provision that a lease not made in substantial conformity with the Act "shall be null and void." Thus, if the lease of trust lands calls for a rental of substantially less than the land's then fair rental value, it is null and void and the holder of the claimed leasehold interest could not be entitled to compensation upon condemnation. 50”
2 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.