Cook v. Hudson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 20 state decisions

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

1. ““The only vital question that seriously affects plaintiff’s title to the prior right initiated by Grant [one of Cook’s predecessors] is the break in the record title heretofore mentioned . . . The right gained by Magee by his occu pancy of the right to use of the water in accordance with section 6817 [70-19-406, MCA] cannot be successfully challenged after so long a time, and we can disregard any question as to whether Magee acquired [his predecessor’s] right grounded on the Grant appropriation and still, within all recognized rules of law and equity, hold that Magee, upon his taking possession of the . . . squatter’s claim, . . . using the waters at all times without let or hindrance as shown by the record, and bringing the land on which the water was used to patent, established a first right to the waters of Grove Creek against all others. “The clear preponderance of the evidence is to the effect that no one questioned the exercise of the first right to the waters of the creek by any owner or occupant of the land described in the complaint from and after Grant made the appropriation in 1892, until the defendant invaded the right of the plaintiffs in 1937 which resulted in this lawsuit.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Grimsley v. Estate of Spencer

2. ““In the consideration of cases such as that at bar, we are governed by the rule that the supreme court may examine the evidence and determine a question of fact for itself, but it cannot overturn findings of the trial court unless there is a decided preponderance of the evidence against them [Citing cases.], and in such cases when all the evidence is before this court we may, under section 8805 [Revised Codes of 1907', now section 93-216, R.C.M. 1947], determine a fact upon which the trial court failed to make a finding (Walsh v. Hoskins, 53 Mont. 198 , 162 Pac. 960 ), and where the contention is made that the evidence is insufficient to support the findings of the trial court we will go no further than to determine whether there is a decided preponderance against the findings and if there be reasonable grounds for differing opinions the decisions will not be disturbed. Nolan v. Benninghoff, 64 Mont. 68 , 208 Pac. 905 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. George v. FISH CREEK IRRIGATION DITCH COMPANY

3. “* * * plaintiffs' Exhibits `G' and `H', Grant's notices of location of water right, were dated and acknowledged October 31, 1892, recorded November 2nd following and recite on the face thereof that the appropriations were made as of October 20, 1892. The recordation of the notice and the date on which the appropriation was alleged to have been made was one day prior in each instance to the date shown by the Severin notice. The presumption is that this record is genuine (subdiv. 34, sec. 10606, Rev. Codes 1921 [now R.C.M.1947, § 93-1301-7]), and its contents are prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Osborn v. Johnston