Strohecker v. Robinson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 state decisions

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

1. ““The accretions, which are formed successively and imperceptibly to any soil situated on the shore of a river or other stream, are called alluvion. “The alluvion belongs to the owner of the soil situated on the edge of the water, whether it be a river or stream, and whether the same be navigable or not, who is bound to leave public that portion of the bank which is required by law for the public use.” [LSA-C.C. art. 509] “The same rule applies to derelictions formed by running water retiring imperceptibly' from one of its shores and encroaching on the other; the owner of the land, adjoining the shore which is left dry, has a right to the dereliction, nor can the owner of the opposite shore, claim the land which he has lost. “This right does not take place in case of derelictions of the sea.” [LSA-C.C. art. 510]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 235 So. 2d 579 - Dickson v. Sandefur

2. “The major part of the area in controversy is space that was occupied by the river when it had acquired a double width by the caving in of the narrow partition between the two beds of the river [in 1902]. That space, however, was not acquired by the plaintiffs ... because the river did not [at the point of the cave-in] open itself a new bed by leaving its former channel, ... but the two beds of the river came together, occupying as much space as they had occupied before. The double-width river bed east of the levee was thereafter vacated by the water, not by the sudden process described in article 518 [now art. 504] of the Code, but by the gradual process described in articles 509 and 510 [now art. 499].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Bourdon