Shively v. Bowlby’s Empirical Analysis
152 U.S. 1 · 1894
Citation profile
275 federal appellate · 144 district · 517 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,435 later decisions (208 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority (1936), Arizona v. California (1983)
275 federal appellate · 144 district · 517 state decisions — followed in 43 states
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 Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States · Hardin v. Jordan · Central Transportation Co. v. Pullman's Palace Car Co. · John Pollard et al. v. John Hagan et al.
Cited together with United States v. Holt State Bank · John Pollard et al. v. John Hagan et al. · Hardin v. Jordan · Merrit Martin v. William C Waddell · Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States
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 1,435 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“some international duty or public exigency.”
107 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘‘ The owner of any land in this state lying upon any navigable stream or other like water, and with in the corporate limits of any incorporated town therein, is hereby authorized to construct a wharf or wharves upon the same, and extend such wharf or wharves into such stream or other like water beyond low-water mark so far as may be necessary and convenient for the use and accommodation of any ships or other boats or vessels that may or can navigate such stream or other like water.” § 121-201. “The corporate authorities of the town wherein such wharf or wharves is proposed to be constructed shall have power to regulate the exercise of the privilege or franchise herein'granted; and upon the application of the person entitled to and desiring to construct such wharf or wharves, such corporate authorities shall, by ordinance or other like mode, prescribe the mode and extent to which the same may be exercised beyond the line of low-water mark, so that such Avharf or wharves shall not be eonsti’ueted any further into such stream or other Avater beyond such low-water line than may be necessary and convenient for the purpose expressed in section 121-201, and so that the same will not unnecessarily interfere with the navigation of such stream or other like Avater.” § 121-202.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“donation land claim, bounded by the Columbia river, . . . includes no title or right in the land below high-water mark,”
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.