State v. Helm

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “the condemning party shall have acted in good faith both in instituting and in abandoning the proceedings”
• unreasonable delay or failure to diligently prosecute condemnation action may constitute bad faith
• proceedings, when instituted, must be “diligently prosecuted”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

14 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Westgate, Ltd. v. State
  Texas Supreme Court· 1992-12-02· cited 290×
• City of Casa Grande v. Arizona Water Co.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 2001-03-13· cited 33×
• City of Tucson v. Morgan
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1970-10-14· cited 19×
• Weintraub v. Flood Control District of Maricopa Co.
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1969-07-10· cited 11×
• Housing Authority v. Amsler
  Supreme Court of Arkansas· 1965-05-31· cited 11×
• Nadler v. City of Mason City
  Supreme Court of Iowa· 1986-05-21· cited 10×
• Whitestone v. Town of South Tucson
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1966-01-25· cited 9×
• City of Sedona v. Devol
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1999-08-26· cited 8×
• Essex County Improvement Authority v. RAR Development Associates
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1999-04-01· cited 6×
• Cornerstone Group XXII, L.L.C. v. Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Authority
  Colorado Court of Appeals· 2006-08-10· cited 5×
• City of Scottsdale v. Paradise Valley Water Co.
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1986-08-21· cited 2×
• State ex rel. Herman v. Olson
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1963-12-31· cited 1×
• All American Pipeline Co. v. Klump
  Court of Appeals of Arizona· 1987-04-23· cited 1×
• Essex Cty. Imp. Auth. v. Rar Dev.
  New Jersey Superior Court App Division· 1999-04-01

Cites

65 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• United States v. General Motors Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1945-04-02· cited 900×
• United States v. Petty Motor Co.
  Supreme Court· 1946-03-25· cited 433×
• Danforth v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1939-12-04· cited 362×
• A. W. Duckett & Co. v. United States
  Supreme Court· 1924-11-17· cited 128×
• State Ex Rel. State Highway Commission v. Burk
  Oregon Supreme Court· 1954-01-13· cited 110×
• Edmands v. City of Boston
  Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court· 1871-11-15· cited 96×
• Houston North Shore Railway Co. v. Tyrrell
  Texas Supreme Court· 1936-11-12· cited 91×
• Morton Butler Timber Co. v. United States
  Sixth Circuit· 1937-06-28· cited 74×
• Corrigan v. City of Chicago
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1893-03-31· cited 58×
• United States v. Sunset Cemetery Co.
  Seventh Circuit· 1943-03-02· cited 53×
• Leonard v. Autocar Sales & Service Co.
  Illinois Supreme Court· 1945-11-21· cited 49×
• Eagle Lake Improvement Co. v. United States
  Fifth Circuit· 1947-03-05· cited 45×
• Maricopa County Municipal Water Conservation Dist. No. 1 v. Warford
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1949-05-31· cited 45×
• Meadows v. United States
  Fourth Circuit· 1944-07-24· cited 38×
• Millhouse v. Drainage District No. 48 of Dunklin County
  Missouri Court of Appeals· 1957-06-13· cited 37×
• Eisenring v. Kansas Turnpike Authority
  Supreme Court of Kansas· 1958-12-06· cited 33×
• Bayle-Lacoste & Co. v. Superior Court
  California Court of Appeal· 1941-08-29· cited 33×
• Piz v. Housing Authority
  Supreme Court of Colorado· 1955-11-07· cited 30×
• Mason v. City of Nashville
  Tennessee Supreme Court· 1927-03-26· cited 30×
• Little v. Loup River Public Power District
  Nebraska Supreme Court· 1949-03-03· cited 29×