Yuba Natural Resources, Inc. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
821 F.2d 638 · 1987
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Yuba Natural Resources, Inc. v. United States (1990), Creppel v. United States (1994)
9 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on United States v. Miller · First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles · United States v. Causby · United States v. General Motors Corp. · United States v. Dickinson
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]emporary reversible takings should be analyzed in the same constitutional framework applied to permanent irreversible takings....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he proper standard of compensation was the rental that probably could have been obtained, and not the difference between market values at the commencement and cessation of the taking. * * * sk * * Th[is] court, comparing Kimball Laundry, stated, ‘in the case of a temporary taking some injury to business is allowed to be awarded, with a careful explanation that this would not be so of a permanent taking.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Government action other than acquisition of title through formal condemnation proceedings (eminent domain), occupancy, or physical invasion may be found to be a taking where government action has destroyed the owner’s use and enjoyment of his property thereby depriving the owner of all or most of his interest in the property (inverse condemnation).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.