Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 135 N.J. Eq. 93 - In Re Gutkowski

135 N.J. Eq. 93 - In Re Gutkowski’s Empirical Analysis

1943

Citation profile

7
cited by 7 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
May 1998
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 7 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1998

3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

50194319501960197019801990decided

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 Wedding v. Metler · Central Railroad Company of New Jersey v. Mayor and Aldermen of Jersey City · Ferguson v. . Ross · Devoe Manufacturing Co. · The People v. . Central R.R. Co. of N.J.

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

  1. “The state of New York shall have and enjoy exclusive jurisdiction of and over all the waters of the bay of New York, and of and over all the waters of Hudson river, lying west of Manhattan island, and to the south of the mouth of Spuyten Duyvel creek, and of and over the lands covered by the said waters to the low-water mark on the westerly or New Jersey side thereof, subject to the following rights of property and jurisdiction of the state of New Jersey, that is to say: 1. The state of New Jersey shall have the exclusive right of property in and to the land under water, lying west of the middle of the bay of New York and west of the middle of that part of the Hudson river which lies between Manhattan island and New Jersey. 2. The state of New Jersey shall have the exclusive jurisdiction of and over the wharves, docks and improvements made and to be made on the shore of the said state, and of and over all vessels aground on said shore, or fastened to any such wharf or dock, except that the said vessels shall be subject to the quarantine or health laws, and laws in relation to passengers of the state of New York, which now exist or which may hereafter be passed. 3. The state of New Jersey shall have the exclusive right of regulating the fisheries on the westerly side of the middle of the said waters; provided, that the navigation be not obstructed or hindered.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““It was to be a police jurisdiction of and over all vessels, ships, boats or craft of every kind that did or might float upon the surface of said waters, and over all the elements and agents or instruments of commerce, while the same were afloat in or upon the waters of said bay and river for quarantine and health purposes, and to secure the observance of all the rules and regulations for the protection of passengers and property, and all fit governmental control designed to secure the interests of trade and commerce in said port of New York and preserve thereupon the public peace.” (42 N. Y., at pages 299-300)”
    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.