48 Wash. 2d 587 - Walker v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1956
Citation profile
40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably State v. ENSLEY (1960), Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Commission (1962)
40 state decisions — followed in 13 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.
Relationships
Relies on Brown v. City of Seattle · State ex rel. Smith v. Superior Court · Jones Beach Boulevard Estate, Inc. v. Moses · Smith v. City of Centralia · Fry v. O'Leary
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * We recognize that the defendants have no property right in any particular flow of traffic over the highway * * *. If traffic normally flowing over that highway were re-routed or if another highway were constructed which resulted in a substantial amount of traffic being diverted from that through highway the value of their property might thereby be diminished, but in such event defendants would have no right to compensation by reason of such re-routing or diversion of traffic. The rerouting or diversion of traffic in such a case would be a mere police power regulation, or the incidental result of a lawful act, and' not the taking or damaging of a property right.””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““We have found no authority, nor has any been called to our attention, ■which allows, to the abutting property ■owner, damages allegedly arising from statutes or ordinances (a) establishing one-way streets; (b) forbidding ‘U’ and left turns; or (c) authorizing the use of other suitable traffic-control devices deemed necessary by the proper authorities to warn, regulate, and guide traffic upon public ^thoroughfares. “Although an abutting property owner may be inconvenienced by one-way traffic regulations immediately in front of his property, he has no remedy if such regulations be reasonably adapted to the benefit of the traveling public”.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The owner of property abutting upon a public thoroughfare has a right to free and convenient access thereto. This right of ingress and egress attaches to the land. It is a property right, as complete as ownership of the land itself. On numerous occasions, this court has held that the abutting property owner is entitled to just compensation if this right is taken or damaged.”
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.