Kohl v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
91 U.S. 367 · 1875
Citation profile
165 federal appellate · 67 district · 134 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 681 later decisions (87 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), Phillips v. Commissioner (1931)
165 federal appellate · 67 district · 134 state decisions — followed in 38 states
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
Relies on Payne v. Hook · Hyde v. Stone · The West River Bridge Company v. Joseph Dix · Lobenstein v. United States
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 681 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The right of eminent domain always was a right at common law. It was not a right in equity, nor was it even the creature of a statute. The. time of its exercise may have been prescribed by statute; but the right itself was superior to any statute. That it was not enforced through the agency of a jury is immaterial; for many civil as well as criminal proceeding's at common law were without a jury. It is difficult, then, to see why a proceeding to take land in virtue of the government’s eminent domain, and determining the compensation to be made for it, is not within the meaning of the statute a suit at common law when initiated in a court.””
34 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“.“The proceeding for the ascertainment of the value of the property and consequent compensation to be made is merely an inquisitiop to establish a particular fact as preliminary to the actual taking, that it may be prosecuted before commissioners or special boards or the courts, with or without the intervention of a jury, as the legislative power may designate. All that is required is that it shall be conducted in some fair and just manner, with opportunity to the owners of the property to present evidence as to its value, and to be beard thereon.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Section 1. That the Circuit Courts of the United States shall have original cognizance, concurrent with the courts of the several states, of all suits of a civil nature, at common law or in equity, where the matter in dispute exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value of two thousand dollars, and • * * in which there shall be a controversy between citizens of different states in which the matter exceeds, exclusive of interest and costs, the sum or value aforesaid. * * * But * * * no civil suit shall be brought before either of said courts against any person by any original process or proceeding in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, but where the jurisdiction is founded only on the fact that the action is between citizens of different states, suit shall be brought only in the district of the residence of either the plaintiff or the defendant. “Sec. 2. That any suit of a civil nature at law or in equity * * * of which the Circuit Courts of the United States are given jurisdiction by tfle preceding section, and which are now pending or which may hereafter be brought, in any state court, may be removed into the Circuit Court of the United States for the proper district, by the defendant or defendants therein, being non residents of that state.” Acts March 3, 1887, and August 13, 1888 ( 24 Stat. 552 , c. 373; 25 Stat. 433 , c. 866 [U. S. Comp. St. 1901, pp. 508, 509]).”
2 later decisions 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.