Stolting v. Everett’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently January 1980 · most notably Pullen v. Novak (1959), Wischmann v. Raikes (1959)
2 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Hamilton v. Omaha & Council Bluffs Street Railway Co. · Smith v. Platte Valley Public Power & Irrigation District · McGill v. Card-Adams Co. · Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley Railroad v. Harlin · Morse v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Co.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ ‘A riparian owner may restore to its former channel a stream which erosion has caused to flow in a new •channel upon his land, providing he does so within a reasonable time after the new channel formed and before the interests of lower riparian proprietors along the course of the old channel would be injuriously affected by such action on his part, * * ” “What is said of restoring a stream to its former channel would likewise be true of keeping the stream in its. original channel. But this right is subject to the following: ‘ “The owners or proprietors of lands bordering upon either the normal or flood channels of a natural watercourse are entitled to have its water, whether within its banks or in its flood channel, run as it is wont to run according to natural drainage, and no one has the lawful right by diversions or obstructions to interfere with its accustomed flow to the damage of another.” * * *.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ballmer v. Smith““In this respect it is appellants’ thought that the evidence of their two experts was conclusive on this factual issue as a matter of law. While it was a subject to which expert testimony was relevant it is not a subject which lends itself exclusively to that type of testimony. Lay witnesses could testify to what they observed and from all the testimony it was for the jury to determine the ultimate question. “Under ordinary circumstances expert opinion evidence is to be considered and weighed by the triers of fact like any other testimony. See 32 C. J. S., Evidence, § 569, p. 390; Morse v. Chicago, B. & Q. Ry. Co., 81 Neb. 745 , 116 N. W. 859 .””
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.