Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 503 F.2d 764 - United States v. 1,629.6 Acres of Land

United States v. 1,629.6 Acres of Land’s Empirical Analysis

503 F.2d 764 · 1974

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
4
states following
September 2008
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 2008 · most notably 101 Ill. 2d 246 - Housing Authority for La Salle County v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n (1984), United States v. Vasarajs (1990)

5 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

1601974198019902000decided

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 Gibson v. United States · United States v. Rands · United States v. Commodore Park, Inc. · Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona · Natural Soda Products Co. v. City of Los Angeles

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

  1. “A district court has jurisdiction in a condemnation proceeding brought by the United States to fix the amount of compensation to be awarded, and to apportion the award among the various claimants. This “necessarily includes the power to determine who among the competing claimants owns the condemned land.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “prescriptive rights cannot be obtained against the federal government.”
    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.