Potomac Steam-Boat Co v. Upper Potomac Steam-Boat Co Potomac Steam-Boat Co’s Empirical Analysis
109 U.S. 672 · 1884
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 12 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 108 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2008 · most notably Shively v. Bowlby (1894), Bauman v. Ross (1897)
26 federal appellate · 12 district · 29 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Barney v. Keokuk · Railroad Company v. Schurmeir · Yates v. Milwaukee · Weber v. The Board of Harbor Commissioners · The Mayor Aldermen v. The United States
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 108 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] riparian proprietor is one whose land is bounded by a navigable stream and among the rights he is entitled to as such are . . . the right to make a landing, wharf or pier for his own use, or for the use of the public, subject to such general rules and regulations as the legislature may impose.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Notley Young [one of the proprietors] and the successor to his title had no property in the street, not even the right to insist that it should be maintained as such. The United States held its title to the land over which it was laid out, for its own use, and not in trust for any person or for any purpose. [Emphasis supplied.] [Id. at 684, 3 S.Ct. at 452 .]”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ Disputes undoubtedly arose, some quite early, not so much as to what rights belonged to ‘ water lots,’ nor as to what properly constituted a.‘water lot,’but, in regard to particular localities, whether that character attached to individual squares and lots. In part, at least, the uncertainty arose from the fact that the plan of the city, as exhibited on paper, did not accurately correspond at all points with the lines as surveyed and marked on the land. Complaints of that description, and of designed departures from the plan, seem to have been made. It is also true, we think, that mistakes arose, as perhaps in the very case of the lots on the north side of.Water street, owing to the fact that the street existed only on paper, and for a long time remained an unexecuted project; property appearing to be riparian, because lying on the water’s edge, which, when the street was actually made, had lost its river front. They were thought to be ‘ water lots,’ because appearing to be so in fact but were not so in law, because they were bounded by the street, and not by the river.” Barclay v. Howell's Lessee, 6 Pet. 498 , 505; Boston v. Lecraw, 17 How. 426 .”
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.