Bailey v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1491 · 31 U.S.C. § 3727 · 33 U.S.C. § 1344 · 40 U.S.C. § 3114 (Declaration of Taking Act) · 41 U.S.C. § 15 · 42 U.S.C. § 4654 · 5 U.S.C. § 701
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of the unauthorized road is to facilitate potential residential development in a hardwood swamp. Thirteen of the 14 proposed lots are composed of wetlands with the exception of a small upland island in lots 3 and 4. Roads and residential development are not water-dependent activities and the presumption that less environmentally damaging alternatives exist (e.g., upland sites) has not been rebutted.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[T]he rationale for finding claims to be personal to those owning property at the time the property became burdened is that, by physically using or physically interfering with the use of the property, the entity operating under the eminent domain power was permanently removing that interest from the private owner, and substituting a full measure of compensation in its stead.”
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.