Benenson v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
548 F.2d 939 · 1977
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently December 2013 · most notably 24 Cal. 3d 266 - Agins v. City of Tiburon (1979), Sun Oil Co. v. United States (1978)
12 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions
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 16 U.S.C. § 461 · 16 U.S.C. § 462 · 40 U.S.C. § 121
Relies on Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Berman v. Parker · United States v. General Motors Corp. · Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead · Butz v. Hein
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Subsequent decisions by the Supreme Court, by this court, and by other courts have reaffirmed the principle that the Government’s interference with the owner’s use of his property may be so substantial and burdensome that a constitutional taking is implied. United States v. General Motors Corporation, 323 U.S. 373 [ 65 S.Ct. 357 , 89 L.Ed. 311 ] (1945); United States v. Central Eureka Mining Co., 357 U.S. 155 [ 78 S.Ct. 1097 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1228 ] (1958); Bydlon v. United States, 146 Ct.Cl. 764 , 175 F.Supp. 891 (1959); Eyherabide v. United States, 170 Ct.Cl. 598 , 345 F.2d 565 (1965); Brown v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 385 F.Supp. 1128 (D.Nev.1973), and Keystone Associates v. State of New York [ 82 Misc.2d 620 ] 371 N.Y.S.2d 814 (1975).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The net effect of the acts of the Government is that plaintiffs cannot use their property for any income-producing purpose; they cannot sell it and thus far, the lack of Congressional appropriations has denied them compensation for it. * * * [T]he property lacks a viable economic use and has in fact a negative market value.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“had not shown that sale of the property was impracticable, that commercial rental could not provide a reasonable rate of return, or that other potential use of the property was foreclosed”
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.