Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 MONT 462 - Ellinghouse v. Taylor

Ellinghouse v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

1897

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
6
states following
September 1987
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently September 1987 · most notably Smith v. Denniff (1900), Allen v. Petrick (1924)

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 14 state decisions

1001897190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Railway Co. v. Montana Union Railway Co. · Lorenz v. Jacob

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““What real distinction is there, so far as the term ‘public use’ is concerned, between the benefit that results to a state from the reclamation by artificial irrigation of ICO acres of agricultural land owned by one or two persons and the reclamation by the same means of thousands of acres, owned by many different persons living together in one subdivision of the state. We do not think there is any in principle. The reclamation of one small field by means of artificial irrigation promotes development and adds to the taxable wealth of the state, as well as the reclamation by the same means of a number of fields.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. ““Persons have been allowed the right of eminent domain, on the theory of a public use, in the construction of dams for the operation of grist and sawmills, in the reclamation of swamp lands, and in other similar instances that might be enumerated, where the public had no direct interest in these operations, whose main end was mere private gain, and where the benefit to the people at large could result indirectly and incidentally only from the increase of wealth and the development of natural resources.””
    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.