Frizell v. Bindley’s Empirical Analysis
1936
Citation profile
10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 1962
10 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 State of Kansas v. State of Colorado · Clark v. Allaman · Shamleffer v. Council Grove Peerless Mill Co. · Durkee v. Board of County Commissioners · Campbell v. Grimes
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““. . . American courts have not hesitated to declare that, subject to its primary uses of lavandum and potandum, the use of water of a flowing stream for irrigation is one of the common-law rights of a riparian proprietor. But such right is not one which could be acquired by prior appropriation at common law. It is limited by the equal right of every other riparian owner along the course of the stream to irrigate his lands therefrom; and no prescriptive rights to water for irrigation purposes can be acquired by one riparian landowner to the detriment of other riparian landowners. (Clark v. Allaman, supra, syl. Hff 10, 11, 14.) At the instance of a lower riparian owner the courts will grant injunctive relief against an upper riparian who diverts or wastes the water of a flowing stream.” (p. 93.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Heise v. Schulz““In eastern Kansas the Idaho or arid states’ doctrine would be entirely inappropriate; in central Kansas it would be of doubtful propriety; in the extreme parts of western Kansas it might do very well; but no court has power to divide this state, like all Gaul, into three parts, and impose a peculiar doctrine upon our western frontier.” (Citing Clark v. Allaman, 71 Kan. 206 , 80 Pac. 571 .) (p. 129.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““And since the common-law rule is that riparian rights are incidents of the land itself, quite different from easements which may be lost through nonuser . . ., those rights, so far as concerns the present litigants, were vested prior to the statute of 1886 and unaffected thereby. . . .” (p. 92.)”
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.