Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 140 Colo. 109 - Koch v. Whitten

Koch v. Whitten’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
1
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently September 2010

5 state decisions

201959196019701980199020002010decided

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 North Poudre Irrigation Co. v. Hinderlider · Rice v. Bush · Spaulding v. Porter · Cache la Poudre Irrigation Ditch Co. v. Hawley · Fehringer v. F. H. Martin Drug Co.

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

  1. ““In the instant case the complaint does not set forth any claim against Austin. It specifically alleges that the water in question does not flow into Koch’s Branch of Brush Creek. In other words, it seeks to make clear that the source of supply of the Gove Ditch is different from the source of supply of the plaintiffs’ ditch. Moreover, Austin appears to have conceded this by moving to dismiss. If his rights could have been adversely affected he could have been expected to intervene rather than ask to be dismissed. The confession of this motion by the plaintiffs was a reiteration of what amounted to a disclaimer (alleged in the complaint) as against Austin. Therefore, plaintiffs’ action in confessing the motion to dismiss cannot be said to constitute an admission that they had no claim against the defendant water officials.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Where material issues of fact are present which can only be determined from [ ] testimony, [a] motion for judgment on the pleadings is improper.”
    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.