Redevelopment Authority v. Stepanik’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 1993
13 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
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Any displaced person who is displaced from his place of business or from his farm operation shall be entitled, in addition to any payment received under subsection (a) of this section, to damages for dislocation of such business or farm operation as follows: (3) In addition to damages under clauses (1) and (2) of this subsection, damages of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) nor less than twenty-five hundred dollars ($2,500), in an amount equal to either (i) forty times the actual monthly rental, in the case of a tenant, or forty times the fair monthly rental value, in the case of owner-occupancy, or (ii) the average annual net earnings, whichever is greater. . . . (Emphasis added.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“person [s] . . . displaced from [their] place of businesses”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Plaintiff in this matter was the owner and occupant of a bar and restaurant situated within the condemned building. Plaintiff also occupied an apartment located above the bar and restaurant. These portions of the condemned building were not leased to any individual or business but were used and occupied solely by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s damages could be computed at forty times the fair monthly rental value of that portion of the building which housed the bar and restaurant and apartment of Plaintiff. A review of the testimony reveals the fair monthly rental value of the property occupied by Plaintiff was in excess of $250.00, and would, therefore, compute out to more than the maximum $10,000 allowed for business disloca tion damages. In fact, both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s expert appraisers agreed that the fair monthly rental value of the portion of the building occupied by Plaintiff was in excess of $250.00.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.