Bluefield v. Bailey’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

12 state decisions

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

1. ““ * * * The order holds that the right to condemn exists, thus settling a vital principle, the right to condemn, leaving it only remaining to expressly confirm the report or have a jury to pass on the amount of compensation; in other words, all that remained of further proceeding was to execute the order by fixing compensation finally. And then, too, by Code, chapter 42, section 20, after the amount reported by the commissioners had been paid into court, notwithstanding there might be a call for new commissioners, or a jury or further proceeding, the city had right to ‘take and use the land’ for the purpose specified in the application. This took the possession from the owners, and allowed the character of the land to be wholly changed and converted into a street. We hold the two orders final as regards right to a writ of error. As is said of a decree in Cocke v. Gilpin, 1 Rob. 20 , when further proceedings do but execute such decree it is final. In this respect there is no difference between a decree and judgment; that is, its quality of finality. This expression has been many times approved. We cannot see why such action of a court deciding the right to condemn, appointing commissioners, receiving their report, and allowing money-reported as compensation to be paid in, thus depriving the owner of possession, is not final. * * * ” (Italics supplied.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 156 W. Va. 537 - United Fuel Gas Co. v. Huffman