Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 53 Wash. 2d 216 - State v. Fox

53 Wash. 2d 216 - State v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis

1958

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
13
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

30 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2016 · most notably Barnes v. North Carolina State Highway Commission (1962), Ark. State Highway Comm. v. Bingham (1960)

30 state decisions — followed in 13 states

1501958196019701980199020002010decided

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 Carazalla v. State

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

  1. “It is now an established doctrine in most jurisdictions that such an owner has no right to the continuation or maintenance of the flow of traffic past his property. The diminution in the value of land occasioned by a public improvement that diverts the main flow of traffic from in front of one's premises is noncompensable. (citing cases) The change in traffic flow in such a case is the result of * * * a lawful act, and is not the taking or damaging of a property right. " (Emphasis supplied). In this same case the Court quoted with approval the following: "`Before a party is entitled to recover, it must be determined that the thing taken for the public use, for which he asks compensation, is his private property.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““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
  3. “The crux of respondents' argument is: The state cannot extract one feature of an overall plan and label it an exercise of the police power in order to reduce the compensation payable to the property owner in a condemnation proceeding.”
    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.