Lamm v. Volpe’s Empirical Analysis
449 F.2d 1202 · 1971
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2014
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
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 Abbott Laboratories v. Gardner · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Flast v. Cohen · School District of Abington Township Pennsylvania v. Schempp J Murray III · Massachusetts v. Mellon
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Police power should not be confused with eminent domain, in that the former con trols the use of property by the owner for the public good, authorizing its regulation and destruction without compensation, whereas the latter takes property for public use and compensation is given for property taken, damaged or destroyed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Lamm has introduced several bills in the Colorado Legislature which he believes would provide effective control of outdoor advertising through exercise of the state police power in lieu of just compensation. Although he does not specifically identify to the police power relied upon, we assume here that his bills declared outdoor advertising adjacent to certain highways a public nuisance, subject to destruction or abatement as injurious to public safety. We recognize that police power is a matter of legislative prerogative. In this field the legislature has wide discretionary powers. It includes everything essential to public safety, health, and morals. Cottrell Clothing Company v. Teets, 139 Colo. 558 , 342 P.2d 1016 (1959). Police power should not be confused with eminent domain, in that the former controls the use of property by the owner for the public good, authorizing its regulation and destruction without compensation, whereas the latter takes property for public use and compensation is given for property taken, damaged or destroyed. Chicago B. & Q. Railway v. State of Illinois ex rel. Drainage Comm’rs., 200 U.S. 561 , 26 S.Ct. 341 , 50 L.Ed. 596 (1906); Appeal of White, 287 Pa. 259 , 134 A. 409 (1926); Annot., 53 A.L.R. 1215 (1928). “Here the power of regulation has not been preempted by the Congress. But that begs the point. The Congress has clearly determined that the ‘taking’ of outdoor advertisements adjacent to federal-aid highways required ‘just compensation’. T”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“. There Lamm (now Governor Lamm) sued individually as a citizen and taxpayer of the State of Colorado and of the United States, and as a member of the Colorado legislature. He contended, much in the manner of the twenty-seven legislators in the instant case, that 23 U.S.C. § 131 was unconstitutional as violative of the Tenth Amendment. That provision was enacted as part of the 1965 Highway Beautification Act, which regulated outdoor advertising along federal-aid highways. It provided that if the Secretary of Transportation decided that any State had not provided”
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.