Beach v. Hayner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 17 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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““That where there are several riparian owners to an inland lake, such proprietors and their lessees and licensees may use the surface of the whole lake for boating and fishing, so far as they do not interfere with the reasonable use of the waters by the other riparian owners. ””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Manney v. Prouse · Burt v. Munger

2. ““But lakes have no thread, and, while there is usually no difficulty in fixing equitable bounds near the shore, it cannot be done, by any mathematical process, over any considerable extent of the lake; and if — which does not often happen — there is any occasion for making partition of the surface, it can only be reached by some measure of proportion requiring judicial or similar ascertainment, and not by running lines from the shore. Small and entirely private lakes are sometimes divided up for such purposes as require separate use; but for uses like boating, and similar surface privileges, the enjoyment is almost universally held to be in common. This was held by the house of lords in Menzies v. Macdonald, 36 Eng. Law & Eq. 20. It was there held that, for all purposes of boating and fishing, the whole lake was open to every riparian owner.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 48 Wash. 2d 815 - Snively v. Jaber

3. “‘ ‘ The court, however, is of the opinion that where there are several riparian proprietors of an inland lake, that all such proprietors and their lessees may use the surface of the whole lake for boating, fishing, and fowling purposes, if access is gained to the lake from their own or leased land; and that no one riparian proprietor can exclude another riparian proprietor from the exercise of these rights; and that neither can one riparian proprietor exclude the lessees of another riparian proprietor from the exercise of these rights.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Burt v. Munger