Proctor v. Sim’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 26 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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Navigability is always a question of fact. Whether a body of water is navigable in the true sense of the word depends, among other things, upon its size, depth, location and connection with, or proximity to, other navigable waters. It is not navigable simply because it is floatable for logs or other timber products, or because there is sufficient depth of water to float a boat of commercial size. A lake which is chiefly valuable for fishing or for pleasure boats of small size is ordinarily not navigable. In order to be navigable it must be capable of being used to a reasonable extent in the carrying on of commerce in the usual manner by water. ‘Navigability in fact is, in the United States, the'test of navigability in law; and whether a river is navigable in fact is to be determined by inquiry whether it is used, or is susceptible for use, in its natural and ordinary condition, as a highway for commerce, over which trade and travel are or may be conducted in the customary modes of trade and travel on water.’ Oklahoma v. Texas, 258 U. S. 574 , 66 L. Ed. 771 . ‘Navigable waters mentioned in § 1 of article 17, of our state constitution include only such waters as are navigable for general commercial purposes.’ Watkins v. Dorris, 24 Wash. 636 , 64 Pac. 840 , 54 L. R. A. 199; Harrison v. Fite, 148 Fed. 781 . To be navigable a lake must be so situated and have such length and capacity as will enable it to accommodate the public generally as a means of transportation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Snively v. State

2. “Our conclusions are: (1) That Duck lake is non-navigable. (2) That the appellants own the shores and bed thereof. (3) That they do not own or have a right to control its surplus waters. (4) That their only existing or vested right is the beneficial use of the waters for irrigation and domestic purposes to the extent hereinabove mentioned by us, and that any surplus waters are subject to appropriation for irrigating non-riparian lands. (p. 619)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 69 Wash. 2d 751 - Botton v. State

3. “Our answer is that it is the right to the beneficial use of such portions of the waters of the lake as are either directly or prospectively, within a reasonable time, proper and necessary for the irrigation of their lands and for the usual domestic purposes. In Brown v. Chase, supra , we expressly so held with reference to the waters of a non-navigable stream.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 36 Wash. 2d 284 - In Re Clinton Water District