Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 45 CAL2D 20 - Linggi v. Garovotti

Linggi v. Garovotti’s Empirical Analysis

1955

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
2
states following
March 2004
most recently cited

14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently March 2004

14 state decisions

80195519601970198019902000decided

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 City of Pasadena v. Stimson · San Joaquin & Kings River Canal & Irrigation Co. v. Stevinson · City & County of San Francisco v. Ross · Central Pacific Ry. Co. v. Feldman · 108 Cal. App. 2d 832 - People v. Thomas

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

  1. ““A fundamental principle of law of eminent domain has been stated as follows: ‘ “ ‘The legislature must designate, in the first place, the uses in behalf of which the right of eminent domain may be exercised, and this designation is a legislative declaration that such uses are public and will be recognized by courts; but whether, in any individual case, the use is a public use must be determined by the judiciary from the facts and circumstances of that case.’ [Citation.] ‘If the subject matter of the legislation be of such a nature that there is any doubt of its character, or if by any possibility the legislation may be for the welfare of the public, the will of the legislature must prevail over the doubts of the court. ’ ” ’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.