green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
9.7 score
“hile a single act may not be enough, a continuance of them in sufficient number and for a sufficient time may prove it.”
Treatment trajectory · 1923 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1923
1974
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Otay Mesa Property L.P. v. United States
hile a single act may not be enough, a continuance of them in sufficient number and for a sufficient time may prove it.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kingsway Cathedral v. Iowa Department of Transportation
See Causby, 328 U.S. at 265-67 , 66 S.Ct. at 1068 , 90 L.Ed. at 1212-13 (holding that repeated flights of military planes so low as to destroy use of land for chicken farm constituted a servitude on the land requiring just compensation, and diminution in value of property was the basis for compensation); Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327, 329-30 , 43 S.Ct. 135, 136-37 , 67 L.Ed. 287, 289-90 (1922) (holding that firing, and imminent threat of firing, of navy coastal guns over plaintiffs property imposed a servitude upon the plaintiffs land and thus amounted to a …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kingsway Cathedral, Vs. Iowa Department Of Transportation And City Of Des Moines, Iowa
Ed. at 1212-13 (holding that repeated flights of military planes so low as to destroy use of land for chicken farm constituted a servitude on the land requiring just compensation and diminution in value of property was the basis for compensation); Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327, 329-30 , 43 S. Ct. 135, 136-37 , 67 L.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Benson v. State
(10×)
Id. at 328 , 43 S.Ct. at 136 , 67 L.Ed. 287 . [¶ 50.] The facts as pleaded by the plaintiff in Portsmouth II and its companion cases included the mounting of a large battery of cannons "with the intention of firing them over the claimant's land and without the intent or ability to fire them except over that land." [8] Id. at 329, 43 S.Ct. at 136-37 , 67 L.Ed. 287 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Harms v. City of Sibley
See, e.g., Causby, 328 U.S. at 265-68 , 66 S.Ct. at 1068-69 , 90 L.Ed. at 1212-14 (holding that Fifth Amendment required payment of compensation where noise produced from airplanes landing at and departing from government-operated airports and passing over plaintiffs’ property constituted direct and immediate interference with the use of their property); Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327, 328-30 , 43 S.Ct. 135, 136-37 , 67 L.Ed. 287, 289-90 (1922) (holding that Fifth Amendment required the *101 United States to compensate a resort owner when the periodic firin…
discussed
Cited "see"
Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States
See Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327, 329-30 , 43 S.Ct. 135 , 67 L.Ed. 287 (1922); Hendler v. United States, 952 F.2d 1364, 1377 (Fed.Cir.1991); Eyherabide v. United States, 345 F.2d 565, 569 (Ct.Cl.1965) (“Isolated invasions, such as one or two floodings or sprayings, do not make a taking, ... but repeated invasions of the same type have often been held to result in an involuntary servitude.”).
discussed
Cited "see"
Froudi v. United States
See Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327 , 43 S.Ct. 135 , 67 L.Ed. 287 (1922) (landowner could sue for taking without just compensation, in connection with Army guns fired over property; argument that Army officers lacked authority to appropriate land rejected as irrelevant, since Army officers had authority to fire guns).
cited
Cited "see"
Shelden v. United States
See Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327 , 43 S.Ct. 135 , 67 L.Ed. 287 (1922).
cited
Cited "see"
Commonwealth v. VonBestecki
See Portsmouth Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 327 , 43 S. Ct. 135 , 67 L.
cited
Cited "see"
Swetland v. Curtiss Airports Corporation
See Portsmouth Co. v. United States, 260 U. S. 327 , 43 S. Ct. 135 , 67 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wagner v. City of Charlotte
See Akzona, Inc., 314 N.C. at 493-94 , 334 S.E.2d at 762-63 ; see also Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327, 329-30 , 67 L.Ed. 287 , 289 (1922) (“[W]hile a single act may not be enough, a continuance of them in sufficient number and for a sufficient time may prove [a taking].
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wagner v. City of Charlotte
See Akzona, Inc., 314 N.C. at 493-94 , 334 S.E.2d at 762-63 ; see also Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327, 329-30 , 67 L.Ed. 287 , 289 (1922) (“[W]hile a single act may not be enough, a continuance of them in sufficient number and for a sufficient time may prove [a taking].
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hansen v. United States
See, e.g., Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327 , 43 S.Ct. 135 , 67 L.Ed. 287 (1922) (holding that plaintiff stated a taking claim by alleging that the cumulative effect of government actions, regardless of government intent, resulted in a taking); Pumpelly v. Green Bay Co., 13 Wall. 166 , 80 U.S. 166 , 20 L.Ed. 557 (1871); Cotton Land Co. v. United States, 109 Ct.Cl. 816 , 75 F.Supp. 232, 233-35 (1948) (using the concept of foreseeability as a relevant — but not exclusively determinative— means of establishing liability; ultimately concluding that the plaintif…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Bormann v. KOSSUTH COUNTY BD. OF SUP'RS
Id. at 265-67 , 66 S.Ct. at 1067-68 , 90 L.Ed. at 1212-13 ; accord Griggs v. Allegheny County, 369 U.S. 84, 89 , 82 S.Ct. 531, 533-34 , 7 L.Ed.2d 585, 588-89 (1962); see also Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327 , 43 S.Ct. 135 , 67 L.Ed. 287 (1922) (holding that firing, and imminent threat of firing, of navy coastal guns over plaintiffs property imposed a “servitude” upon the plaintiffs land and thus amounted to a taking of some interest for public use); Dolezal v. City of Cedar Rapids, 209 N.W.2d 84, 87 (Iowa 1973) (recognizing a navigation easement as one tha…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Troy Ltd. v. Renna
See, e.g., Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327, 329-30 , 43 S.Ct. 135, 136-37 , 67 L.Ed. 287 (1922) (military use); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania R.R., 195 U.S. 540, 567-71 , 25 S.Ct. 133, 140-41 , 49 L.Ed. 312 (1904) (telegraph lines); Loretto, 458 U.S. at 429-30 , 102 S.Ct. at 3172-73 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Troy Ltd. v. Renna
See, e.g., Portsmouth Harbor Land & Hotel Co. v. United States, 260 U.S. 327, 329-30 , 43 S.Ct. 135, 136-37 , 67 L.Ed. 287 (1922) (military use); Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Pennsylvania R.R., 195 U.S. 540, 567-71 , 25 S.Ct. 133, 140-41 , 49 L.Ed. 312 (1904) (telegraph lines); Loretto, 458 U.S. at 429-30 , 102 S.Ct. at 3172-73 .
United States
v.
Northeastern Construction Company
v.
Northeastern Construction Company
122.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 4, 1922.
Mr. Alfred A. Wheat, Spécial Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Mr. Solicitor General Beck was on the brief, for the United States., Mr. George A. King, with whom Mr. William B. King and Mr. George R. Shields were on the brief, for appellee.
McKenna.
Cited by 1 opinion | Published
Citer courts: Federal Claims (1)
[*327] Mr. Justice McKenna
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Judgment in this case was rendered at the same time as that in Mason & Hanger Co. v. United States, just decided, ante, 323.
The amounts only are different. In that case it was $2,500 — in this case it is $150. In both, the amounts represented premiums on bonds and depend upon the same considerations. ' On the authority of the Mason & Hanger Co. Case the judgment of the Court of Claims in this case is
Affirmed.