Clark v. Nash’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

50 federal appellate · 23 district · 135 state decisions

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

1. “[w]here the use is asserted to be public, and the right of the individual to condemn land for the purpose of exercising such use is founded upon or is the result of some peculiar condition of the soil or climate, or other peculiarity of the State, where the right of condemnation is asserted under a state statute, we are always, where it can fairly be done, strongly inclined to hold with the state courts, when they uphold a state statute providing for such condemnation. The validity of such statutes may sometimes depend upon many different facts, the existence of which would make a public use, even by an individual, where, in the absence of such facts, the use clearly be private. .... [Water rights] are not the same in the arid and mountainous States of the West that they are in the States of the East. These rights have been altered by many of the Western States, by their constitutions and laws, because of the totally different circumstances in which their inhabitants are placed....”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Baillie v. Larson · Miocene Ditch Co. v. Jacobsen

2. ““We are of opinion that the use is a public one, although the taking of the right of way is for the purpose simply of thereby obtaining the water for an individual, where it is absolutely necessary to enable him to make any use whatever of his land, and which will be valuable and fertile only if water can be obtained.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann · Baillie v. Larson

3. ““The rights of a riparian owner in and to the use of the water flowing by his land are not the same in the arid and mountainous states of the West that they are in the states of the East. These rights have been altered by many of the Western States, by their constitution and laws, because of the totally different circumstances in which their inhabitants are placed, from those that exist in the states of the East, and such alterations have been made for the very purpose of thereby contributing to the growth and prosperity of those states arising from mining and the cultivation of an otherwise valueless soil, by means of irrigation. This court must recognize the difference of climate and soil, which render necessary these different laws in the States so situated.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co. · Cascade Town Co. v. Empire Water & Power Co.