Esposito v. South Carolina Coastal Council’s Empirical Analysis
939 F.2d 165 · 1991
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions
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 Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co · Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City · United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Living in a beach bungalow bears little resemblance to the noxious uses of property the Supreme Court has identified. Mu-gler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 , 8 S.Ct. 273 , 31 L.Ed. 205 (1887) (distillery); Reinman v. Little Rock, 237 U.S. 171 , 35 S.Ct. 511 , 59 L.Ed. 900 (1915) (downtown livery stable); Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394 , 36 S.Ct. 143 , 60 L.Ed. 348 (1915) (urban brickyard); Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272 , 48 S.Ct. 246 , 72 L.Ed. 568 (1928) (red cedar trees infected with apple rust disease near commercial orchards); and Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 , 82 S.Ct. 987 , 8 L.Ed.2d 130 (1962) (quarrying below water table near town that depended on groundwater supply). The rapidity with which rental beach houses are gobbled up by the public causes me to doubt that they are, at least yet, generally regarded as ‘tantamount to a public nuisance.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“The enactment of the 1990 Act during the pendency of this appeal, with its provisions for special permits and other changes that may affect the plaintiffs, does not relieve us of the need to address the plaintiffs' claims under the provisions of the 1988 Act. Even if the amended Act cured all of the plaintiffs' concerns, the amendments would not foreclose the possibility that a taking had occurred during the years when the 1988 Act was in effect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“have traditionally looked to the existing use of property as a basis for determining the extent of interference with the owner's 'primary expectation concerning the use of the parcel.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.