United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co.’s Empirical Analysis
174 U.S. 690 · 1899
Citation profile
142 federal appellate · 54 district · 143 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 588 later decisions (85 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Kaiser Aetna v. United States (1979), Utah Power Light Company v. United States No 202 United States (1917)
142 federal appellate · 54 district · 143 state decisions — followed in 28 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 Brown v. Piper · Gilman v. Philadelphia · Escanaba Lake Michigan Transp Co v. City of Chicago · The Montello
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 588 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“its use for any purposes of transportation has been and is exceptional, and only in times of temporary high water.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although this power of changing the common-law rule as to streams within its dominion undoubtedly belongs to each state, yet two limitations must be recognized: First, that, in the absence of specific authority from congress a state cannot, by its legislation, destroy the right of the United States, as the owner of lands bordering on a stream, to the continued flow of its waters; so far, at least, as may be necessary for the beneficial uses of the government property; second, that it is limited by the superior power of the general government to secure the uninterrupted navigability of all navigable streams within the limits of the United States.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“whenever, by priority of possession, rights to the use of water for mining, agricultural, manufacturing, or other purposes, have vested and accrued, and the same are recognized and acknowledged by the local customs, laws, and the decisions of courts, the possessors and owners of such vested rights shall be maintained and protected in the same; ...”
5 later decisions 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.