Walker v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
11 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Hydro Resources Corp. v. Gray (2007), Rimbert v. Eli Lilly and Co. (2008)
11 district · 24 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
Applies 43 U.S.C. § 661
Relies on United States v. City & County of San Francisco · United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co. · Buford v. Houtz · Montgomery v. Lomos Altos, Inc. · State Ex Rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Does the law of the State of New Mexico recognize a limited forage right implicit in a vested water right? 2. Does the law of the State of New Mexico ... recognize a limited forage right implicit in a right-of-way for the maintenance and enjoyment of a vested water right?”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“and its predecessor recognize merely a right in use of the license to graze on public lands, allowing those with sufficient water rights to support cattle on such lands to exclude others without a water right____ This Court has never indicated that a person raising cattle pursuant to a license has any separate interest in the public domain, aside from water rights protected by the Mining Act [of 1866, 43 U.S.C. § 661 ], that can be asserted against the United States government if that license is lost.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; and the right of way for the construction of ditches and canals for the purposes herein specified is acknowledged and confirmed.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.