Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 106 CAL 392 - Utt v. Frey

Utt v. Frey’s Empirical Analysis

1895

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
7
states following
June 2008
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently June 2008 · most notably 26 Cal. 3d 301 - People v. Shirokow (1980), Lindblom v. Round Valley Water Co. (1918)

3 federal appellate · 39 state decisions

90189519001910192019301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Richardson v. McNulty · Willson v. Cleaveland · Judson v. Malloy · Bell v. Bed Rock Tunnel & Mining Co. · Moon v. Rollins

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

  1. ““The right which is acquired to the use of water by appropriation may he lost by abandonment. To abandon such right is to relinquish possession thereof without any present intention to repossess. To constitute such abandonment, there must be a concurrence of act and intent, viz. the act of leaving the premises or property vacant, so that it may he appropriated by the next comer, and the intention of not returning. * * * The mere intention to abandon, if not coupled with yielding up possession or a cessation of user, is not sufficient; nor will the nonuser alone, without an intention to abandon, be held to amount to an abandonment. Abandonment is a question of fact to be determined by a jury, or the court sitting as such. Yielding up possession and nonuser is evidence of abandonment, under many circumstances, sufficient to warrant the deduction of the ultimate fact of abandonment. But it may be rebutted by any evidence which shows that, notwithstanding such nonuser or want of possession, the owner did not intend to abandon it.””
    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.