Jensen v. Jones’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “the state engineer acts in an administrative capacity only and has no authority to determine rights of parties,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Salt Lake City Corp. v. Haik · 2018 UT App 109 - Utah State Eng'r v. Johnson (In Re Utah Lake & Jordan River)

2. “(1)(a) It shall be the duty of the state engineer to approve an application if there is reason to believe that: (i) for an application to appropriate, there is unappropriated water in the proposed source; (ii) the proposed use will not impair existing rights or interfere with the more beneficial use of the water; (iii) the proposed plan: (A) is physically and economically feasible, unless the application is filed by the United States Bureau of Reclamation; and (B) would not prove detrimental to the public welfare; (iv) the applicant has the financial ability to complete the proposed works; (v) the application was filed in good faith and not for purposes of speculation or monopoly; and (vi) if applicable, the application complies with a groundwater management plan adopted under Section 73-5-15.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haik v. Jones

3. “'[T]he district court's judgment in reviewing the [State Engineer's] decision is limited to the issues determinable by the [State Engineer]' and 'the court may not determine issues not within the power of the [State Engineer] to determine.' " Jensen v. Jones , 2011 UT 67 , ¶ 16, 270 P.3d 425 (citation omitted). ¶ 29 We have noted "that 'the State Engineer does not have the authority to adjudicate all the issues that may arise in the context of a change application.' " Id. ¶ 11 (citation omitted). "With respect to change applications, the jurisdiction of the State Engineer's office is thus circumscribed by the criteria upon which the statute permits it to base its decisions. Those criteria are largely set forth in Utah Code section 73-3-8(1).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Haik v. Jones