Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 538 F.2d 865 - Barnes v. United States

Barnes v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

538 F.2d 865 · 1976

Citation profile

107
cited by 107 later decisions
12
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 107 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Trinity Broadcasting of Denver, Inc. v. City of Westminster (1993), Moden v. United States (2005)

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 12 states

340197619801990200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 42 U.S.C. § 4654

Relies on United States v. Dickinson · United States v. Cress · United States v. Willow River Power Co. · United States v. Twin City Power Co. · United States v. Kansas City Life Insurance

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

  1. “Generally speaking, property may be taken by the invasion of water where subjected to intermittent, but inevitably recurring, inundation due to authorized Government action.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[G]overnment-induced flooding not proved to be inevitably recurring occupies the category of mere consequential injury, or tort.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Adopting a date of taking must often be done in a somewhat imprecise manner, this aspect of the cases being in the nature of a jury verdict, [citation omitted]. The date selected obviously depends on the facts of each case, but the facts here lead us to the firm conclusion that the date the Government completed taking its flowage easement cannot be prior to when, through passage of time, the permanent character of intermittent flooding could fairly be perceived.”
    2 later decisions 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.