Drummond Coal Co. v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4
cited by 4 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited
4 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Korf v. Fleming · Alabama Power Co. v. Herzfeld · 60 Wash. 2d 387 - Smithrock Quarry, Inc. v. State · 382 So. 2d 1 - Harco Drug, Inc. v. Notsla, Inc. · Gamble 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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Generally speaking, the measure of damages for a leasehold interest taken under eminent domain is the fair market value of the lease. In Alabama, two methods of determining fair market value have been approved. “First, fair market value, ie., the measure of a lessee’s damages for a leasehold taken under eminent domain, may be the economic rent (or fair rental value of the leasehold) less the rent reserved under the terms of the lease. Under this approach, the value of the leasehold interest is the difference between the fair rental value of the leased premises for the unexpired term of the lease, and the rent reserved in the lease. “Second, fair market value may be assessed as the difference between the reasonable market value of the unexpired portion of the lease, and the amount of rent that would have been due and paid by the lessee for the unexpired term of the lease. Whether there is any substantive difference between this method and the one first described is not entirely clear. [[Image here]] “Courts ... have created a third method, perhaps not yet expressly articulated in Alabama, of assessing the value of leasehold interests: actual or intrinsic value of the leasehold. Fair and just valuation of all the interests at stake in eminent domain proceedings requires that this method be recognized. [[Image here]] “... [W]e conclude that the factfinder should be allowed to consider the following factors in determining the value of a leasehold interest as that value affects t”
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.