Hidden Hollow Ranch v. Fields’s Empirical Analysis
2004
Citation profile
24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
August 2013
most recently cited
24 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Rock Creek Ditch & Flume Co. v. Miller · Mildenberger v. Galbraith · Smith v. Duff · Popham v. Holloron · Frank L. Pirtz Construction, Inc. v. Hardin Town Pump, Inc.
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We review a district court’s findings of fact to ascertain whether they are clearly erroneous. Habel v. James, 2003 MT 99, ¶ 12 , 315 Mont. 249, ¶ 12 , 68 P.3d 743, ¶ 12 . A finding is clearly erroneous if it is not supported by substantial evidence, if the trial court misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if our review of the record convinces us that a mistake has been committed. Habel , ¶ 12. Our standard of review of a district court’s conclusion of law is whether the court’s interpretation of the law is correct. Habel , ¶ 12.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here . . . vagrant, fugitive waters have finally collected and reached a natural channel . . . [such as] water of a slough fed by seepage from irrigation, the waters flowing in such natural channel constitute a watercourse within the meaning of the law of water rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“lose their original character as seepage,”
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.