Reahard v. Lee County’s Empirical Analysis
968 F.2d 1131 · 1992
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2018
13 federal appellate · 5 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City · Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon · Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council · Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co. · Agins v. City of Tiburon
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.
“does not seek 'an invalidation of the local authority's application of the regulation,' ... but simply monetary compensation for the value taken.” Reahard, 968 F.2d at 1135 (quoting Eide v. Sarasota County, 908 F.2d 716 , 720-21 (11th Cir.1990), ce rt. denied, 498 U.S. 1120 , 111 S.Ct. 1073 , 112 L.Ed.2d 1179 (1991)). 8 . In Williamson, 473 U.S. at 191 , 105 S.Ct. at 3118-19 , the Court held no”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“If the regulation does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest, it can be declared invalid. The second test is whether a regulation denies an owner economically viable use of his property. In Nollan, the Court found that the [regulation] failed the first test and thus violated the takings clause. The Court did not reach the second test.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to resolve the question of whether the landowner has been denied all or substantially all economically viable use of his property, the factfinder must analyze, at the very least: (1) the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant; and (2) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with investment-backed expectations.”
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.