People v. Hecker’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 1995 · most notably Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona (1973), 227 Cal. App. 2d 675 - Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. East Bay Union of MacHinists, Local 1304 (1964)
2 federal appellate · 33 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
Applies 43 U.S.C. § 1311
Relies on Shively v. Bowlby · Estate of Bristol v. Young · United States v. California · Knight v. United Land Ass'n · United States v. California
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We are satisfied that the correct rule is that the littoral owner of uplands upon a navigable bay has no right of access to the waters of the bay over intervening tide lands, whether filled or unfilled, which have been granted by the state to a city in trust for the purpose of improving such navigable bay in furtherance of commerce and navigation. [Citations.] Although it is true that as against a stranger a littoral owner of upland bordering upon navigable waters may not be deprived of his right of access to such waters, [fn. [16]] no such right exists in favor of such littoral owner as against the state or its grantee in the exercise of a lawful use or purpose.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“that accretions formed gradually and imperceptibly, but caused entirely by artificial means that is, by the works of man, such as wharves, groins, piers, etc., and by the dumping of material into the ocean belong to the state, or its grantee, and do not belong to the upland owner.... If accretions along an entire bay caused by the construction of a pier or wharf were held to belong to the upland owners as against the state, or its grantee, it would mean, in some cases, that the power of the municipality to improve its harbor would be cut off unless the accreted areas were condemned. It would mean that every time the state or its grantee determined to build a wharf or pier, or to grant a permit or franchise for such construction, it would be granting away a material portion of the tidelands along the entire bay that might later be covered by artificial accretions. Such a rule would mean that the state or its grantee could thus grant into private ownership tidelands which it holds under an irrevocable trust. Such rule would permit the state or its grantees thus indirectly to convey away these tidelands, held in trust, when it cannot do so directly. Such a rule would be violative of fundamental concepts of public policy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Relying upon the federal and common-law rule that accretion accrues to the upland owner even though assisted by artificial means, appellant submits that under section 22.2, Civil Code, it shall be the rule of decision in California courts. The law of this state does not support such a position. The within controversy is between the littoral owner and the state, and as such the rule urged by appellant does not apply.”
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.