Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 535 U.S. 302 - Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Empirical Analysis

2002

Citation profile

1,108
cited by 1,108 later decisions
12
cited 12 times by the Supreme Court
42
states following
May 2026
most recently cited

251 federal appellate · 63 district · 386 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,108 later decisions (12 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2026 · most notably Lingle Governor of Hawaii et al. v. Chevron Usa Inc (2005), Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

251 federal appellate · 63 district · 386 state decisions — followed in 42 states

6560200220102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 33 U.S.C. § 1288 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.

Cited together with Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council · Palazzolo v. Rhode Island · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.

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 1,108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[w]hen the government physically takes possession of an interest in property for some public purpose, it has a categorical duty to compensate the former owner.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “[l]ogically, a fee simple estate cannot be rendered valueless by a temporary prohibition on economic use, because the property will recover value as soon as the prohibition is lifted.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Anything less than a `complete elimination of value,' or a `total loss,' ... would require the kind of analysis applied in Penn Central.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.