King v. Cade’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently February 2012
6 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
Relies on Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Groves · Town of Jefferson v. Hicks · Payne v. Wade · Gulf, C. & S. F. Ry. Co. v. Richardson · Clayton v. Speakman
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The reciprocal rights and duties of upper and lower landowners in connection with the disposition of surface waters are well established by the jurisprudence of this state. For a long period of time this court has given its approval to the ‘common enemy' doctrine as modified by the rule of reason. Town of Jefferson v. Hicks, 23 Okl. 684 , 102 P. 79 , 24 L.R.A.,N.S., 214; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Groves, 20 Okl. 101 , 93 P. 755 , 22 L.R.A.,N.S., 802. A succinct statement of our law is found in Gulf, C. & S. F. R. Co. v. Richardson, 42 Okl. 457 , 141 P. 1107 , which reads in part as follows: ‘The common law governing the diversion of surface water as adopted and applied in this state has been modified and restricted to this extent, namely, that each proprietor may divert the same, cast it back or pass it along to the next proprietor, provided he can do so without injury to such adjoining proprietor. Under this rule of law no one is permitted to sacrifice his neighbor’s property in order to protect his own.’ ””
2 later decisions 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.