59 Wash. 2d 142 - Feuerborn v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1961
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently October 2011
11 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
Relies on Kincaid v. City of Seattle · City of Seattle v. Littell · Hinckley v. City of Seattle · City of Spokane v. Colby · State ex rel. Union Lumber Co. v. Superior Court
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the Grant County condemnation proceeding, appellants were paid for the taking of their right of direct access to the state highway as provided in the original plan. Their right to such compensation is not affected (except in the amount thereof) by the construction of a frontage road which will provide access to the highway. McMoran v. State, 55 Wn. (2d) 37, 345 P. (2d) 598 (1959). In the original condemnation proceeding, the state presented plans which mitigated the damages fixed by the jury. This the state had a right to do. State v. Ward, 41 Wn. (2d) 794, 252 P. (2d) 279 (1953). However, when the state elects to have the issue of damages determined in relation to the specific plans and evidence submitted by it, the state is bound by such plans and evidence. State v. Basin Development & Sales Co., [supra]. So, if the state deviates from the plans which it had submitted to the jury in the original condemnation proceeding, the issue of damages is thereby reopened. State v. Basin Development & Sales Co., supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Sufficient construction plans must be presented by the condemnor so that the extent of loss to the property owner can be understood and translated into monetary-damages. If, after the award is made to the property owner, the condemnor deviates from its plans in such a way as to cause a further loss of property value, this constitutes another condemnation for which just compensation must again be assessed.”
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.