Vance v. Wolfe’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently January 2025
5 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 American Water Development, Inc. v. City of Alamosa · EMPIRE LODGE HOMEOWNERS'ASS'N v. Moyer · Safranek v. Town of Limon · Santa Fe Trail Ranches Property Owners Ass'n v. Simpson · State v. Southwestern Colorado Water Conservation District
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.
“"Beneficial use" means the use of that amount of water that is reasonable and appropriate under reasonably efficient practices to accomplish without waste the purpose for which the appropriation is lawfully made. Without limiting the generality of the previous sentence, "beneficial use" includes: (a) The impoundment of water for firefighting or storage for any purpose for which an appropriation is lawfully made, including recreational, fishery, or wildlife purposes; (b) The diversion of water by a county, municipality, city and county, water district, water and sanitation district, water conservation district, or water conservancy district for recreational in-channel diversion purposes; and (c) For the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations, the appropriation by the state of Colorado in the manner prescribed by law of such minimum flows between specific points or levels for and on natural streams and lakes as are required to preserve the natural environment to a reasonable degree.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“rule and in requiring the State Engineer to obtain a judicial determination that he had authority to administer nontributary ground water within the boundaries of the Reservation. T6 Accordingly, we reverse the water court's invalidation of the Fruitland Rule and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. I. 17 Historically, the State Engineer did not issue permits for ground water extracted in the course of coalbed methane (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“) production and other oil and gas development in Colorado. 12 Historically, the State Engineer did not require permits for ground water extracted in the course of CBM production, taking the position that such operations were governed exclusively by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (”
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.