Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 144 KY 352 - Wilson v. Watson

Wilson v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis

1911

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
September 1983
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently September 1983

3 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

4019111920193019401950196019701980decided

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.

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.

  1. ““Where a permanent island of long existence, having a separate and well-defined body of land, has been patented and conveyed apart from the mainland, and it does not appear that the mainland has theretofore been granted, the island constitutes opposite sides to the two shore owners, making two channels, and giving to the mainland owner title to the bed to the middle of the stream between the island and the shore, and no more. . . . “Furthermore, island No. 3 wasi granted by the commonwealth in 1837 as ah independent survey, and entirely separate from the mainland. No owner of the mainland is claiming, or has ever claimed any part of island No. 3 by virtue of riparian rights which .attached to the mainland. It may be that island No. 3 was granted by the commonwealth prior to the grant of the mainland; or it may be that the mainland was restricted in its boundary to the edge of the water, or by other terms, which would deprive its owner of his common law riparian rights. This case, therefore, is to be tried as though island No. 3 was mainland. If it is to be so treated, and is not restricted in its description, there is nor reason, in principle, why it should - not have the usual common-law riparian rights that attach generally to the mainland.” ■”
    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.