Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 942 F.2d 290 - United States v. Acres of Land Situated in Platt Springs Township County of Lexington State of South Carolina

United States v. Acres of Land Situated in Platt Springs Township County of Lexington State of South Carolina’s Empirical Analysis

942 F.2d 290 · 1991

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
2
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably United States v. L.E. Cooke Co. (1993), United States v. Acres of Land G a (2005)

5 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

1001991200020102020decided

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 Dugan v. Rank · Olson v. United States · Kentucky v. Indiana · United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson · Bauman v. Ross

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

  1. “[O]vercompensation is as unjust to the public as undercompensation is to the property owner, and the landowner bears the burden of proving the value of the land.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Most parcels of land are adaptable to several uses, and just compensation is measured by the use that would bring the highest price — the “highest and best” use. In the absence of proof to the contrary, the highest and best use of property is presumed to be its current use. Where a landowner posits that a different use is “highest and best, ” he must show that this use is “reasonably probable” and that the probability has a real market value.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[L]and having a sand or gravel content may not be valued on the basis of conjectural future demand for it. There must be some objective support for the future demand, including volume and duration.”
    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.