Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 176 U.S. 211 - United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co.

United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom Co.’s Empirical Analysis

176 U.S. 211 · 1900

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
23
cited 23 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
November 1973
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 1973 · most notably Adair v. United States (1908), United States v. Republic Steel Corp. (1960)

20 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions

15019001910192019301940195019601970decided

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.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Relies on Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States · Willamette Iron Bridge Co. v. Hatch · United States v. Bellingham Bay Boom 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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “That the creation of any obstruction, not affirmatively authorized by law, to the navigable capacity of any waters, * * * is hereby prohibited.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Congress, it must be assumed, was aware of the fact that until it acted upon the subject of navigable streams, which were entirely within the confines of a single state, although connecting with waters beyond its boundaries, such state had plenary power over the subject of that navigation, and it knew that, when in the absence of any statute of Congress on the subject an obstruction to such a navigable river had been built under the authority of ,an act of the Legislature of the state, such obstruction was legal and affirmatively authorized by law, because it was so authorized by the law of a state at a time when Congress had passed no act upon the subject. When Congress in 1890 passed the river and harbor bill, we think the expression contained in section 10 in regard to obstructions ‘not affirmatively authorized by law’ meant not only a law of Congress, but a law of the state in which the river was situated, which had been passed before Congress had itself legislated upon the subject. An obstruction created under the authority of a state statute under such circumstances we cannot doubt was an obstruction ‘affirmatively authorized by law.’ ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““Such corporations shall have power and are hereby authorized in any of the waters of this state, or the dividing waters thereof, to construct, maintain and use all necessary sheer or receiving booms, dolphins, piers, piles, or other structure necessary or convenient for carrying on the business of such corporations: provided, that such boom or booms, sheer booms or receiving booms shall be so constructed as to allow the free passage between any of such booms and the opposite shore for all boats, vessels or steam craft of any kind whatsoever or for ordinary purposes of navigation.””
    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.