State v. Carpenter’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

69 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * the price the property will bring when offered for sale by one who desires to sell, but is not obligated to sell, and is bought by one who desires to buy but is under no necessity of buying.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Calvert v. Kattar · Jones v. City of Houston

2. ““1. What do you find from a preponderance of the evidence was the market value on March 16, 1970, of the defendants’ tract of land taken by the plaintiffs, considered as severed land? Answer in dollars and cents. Answer: $329,180.50. 2. Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the market value of the remainder of the defendants’ tract of land not taken was decreased in market value as a result of the condemnation by the plaintiffs, giving consideration to the uses to which the part taken is to be subjected? Answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’ Answer: Y es. If you have answered the foregoing special issue ‘no,’ you will not answer Special Issues Nos. 3 and 4; otherwise, you will answer both of them. 3. What do you find from a preponderance of the evidence was the value of defendants’ approximately 5.9-acre tract of land on March 16, 1970, immediately before the taking of a portion thereof for highway purposes ? Answer in dollars and cents. Answer: $577,638.00. 4. What do you find from a preponderance of the evidence was the market value of the remainder of defendants’ land on March 16, 1970, immediately after the other part was taken, giving consideration to the uses to which the part taken is to be subj ected. Answer in dollars and cents. Answer: $205,690.50.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Uselton · Gill v. State

3. ““It is a general rule that improvements situated upon the portion of land taken are to be considered as a part of the realty. They ordinarily have no market value separate from the land. Therefore, when such improvements are taken or destroyed their value can be reflected in the finding as to the value of the land taken, and evidence of their value is admissible for that purpose. As an alternative, however, if the improvements which are situated upon the portion of land taken are essential to the Use and enjoyment of the remainder of the land, or if their replacement, by removal or reconstruction, is necessary in order to obviate depreciation in the value of the residue, the cost of removal, and/or reconstruction and/or replacement may be a proper inquiry in connection with the issue of diminished market value of the remainder.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. City of San Antonio v. Congregation of the Sisters of Charity of the Incarnate Word, Inc. · Breithaupt v. State