Wilton v. County St. Johns’s Empirical Analysis
1929
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 163 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 167 later decisions — most recently April 2009 · most notably Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co. v. County of Brevard (1947), Lustine v. State Roads Commission (1958)
2 federal appellate · 163 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 Hagar v. · Rindge Co v. Los Angeles County Rindge Co · Bragg v. Weaver · Lainhart v. Catts · Sears v. City of Akron
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 167 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Again, where the statute conferring the authority, or the statute on the subject of eminent domain, limit the taking to such property as may be* necessary for the purpose in question, whether any necessity exists for taking particular property for a particular purpose is ultimately á judicial question, upon which the owner is entitled to be heard. Lewis, Em. Dom., pages 599, 600; 20 C. J. 629, 630; Spafford v. Brevard County, supra. But the grantee of the power is vested with a considerable discretionary power, and may determine the location of the land required to be appropriated in order to accomplish the public purpose in view; and such determination will not be interferred with by the courts if it is made in good faith and is not capricious or wantonly injurious, or in some respect beyond the privilege accorded by the statute. The landowner cannot object merely because some other location might have been made or some other property obtained which would have been suitable for the purpose. 20 C. J. 632, Spafford v. Brevard County, supra. A large discretion is necessarily vested in those who are vested with the power, in determining what property, and how much, is necessary. To warrant a denial of the application, it should appear that what is sought is clearly an abuse of power on the part of the petitioner. It may be said to be a general rule that, unless a corporation exercising the power of eminent domain acts in bad faith or is guilty of oppression, its discretion in t”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“While the Legislature may, in providing for the condemnation of private property, determine in the first instance whether the use for which it is proposed to allow the condemnation is a public use, and such determination will be accorded great weight by the courts, this legislative determination is not final. It is universally held that whether a particular use is public or not is a judicial question.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““But the mere categorical denial of the answer that the construction or excavation of the drainage ditch was for a public use, or the mere allegation that it was not for a public use, was hardly compatible with the rules of good pleading. This allegation was in the nature of a mere legal conclusion of the pleader. The answer should have gone further and alleged the facts supporting this conclusion.””
1 later decision 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.