Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 769 F.2d 4 - United States v. Acres of Land More or Less Situated in Towns of Provincetown and Truro County of Barnstable Commonwealth of Massachusetts B

United States v. Acres of Land More or Less Situated in Towns of Provincetown and Truro County of Barnstable Commonwealth of Massachusetts B’s Empirical Analysis

769 F.2d 4 · 1985

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
August 2002
most recently cited

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently August 2002

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

30198519902000decided

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. § 459B · 16 U.S.C. § 459B

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp. · Olson v. United States · Boom Company v. Patterson · United States v. Merz

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

  1. “is not new to this court. In 7.92 Acres of Land (I), Bessay acquired two tracts of land in 1963 where there existed the remains of a structure that had been built in the 1930's. Bessay stated that, after 1959, but prior to 1963, the structure was partially burned. Sometime after 1963, the remaining portion of the structure was also burned. Bessay claimed that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “Id. at 9. In addition, we noted that: 21 [T]he structure ... was never served by utilities, had no waste disposal facilities, and permits for such services or facilities were never obtained or issued. Clearly, the legislative history and the case law interpreting the Act reveal that Congress did not intend to include within the definition of”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “no doubt that the 'improved property' exemption of the Act has been designed and interpreted to prevent the eviction of bona fide or actual homeowners from established residences, thereby accommodating 'the legitimate interests of existing residents.'”
    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.