King v. Schultz’s Empirical Analysis
1962
Citation profile
18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently June 2014
18 state decisions
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 Galiger v. McNulty · St. Onge v. Blakely · Havre Irrigation Co. v. Majerus · Smith v. Duff · Meznarich v. Republic Coal 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“* * * 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 majoritye.g. Osborn v. Johnston““Developing case law in this state provides three basic prerequisites for establishing adverse user: (1) that the claimant used water at a time when the plaintiff had need of it; (2) that he used it in such a substantial manner as to notify plaintiff that it was being deprived of water to which it was entitled; and (3) that during all of that period, plaintiff could have maintained an action against him for so using the water. (Citing King v. Schultz (1962), 141 Mont. 94, 101 , 375 P.2d 108, 111 .)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is equally well settled that in order to acquire a right by adverse user or prescription, it is essential that the proof must show that the use has been (a) continuous for the statutory period which in this state is [five] years [section 93-2513, R.C.M.1947]; (b) exclusive (uninterrupted, peaceable); (e) open (notorious); (d) under claim of right (color of title); (e) hostile and an invasion of another’s rights which he has a chance to prevent.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. Krutar
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.