Boise Artesian Hot Cold Water Company Limited v. Boise City’s Empirical Analysis
213 U.S. 276 · 1909
Citation profile
116 federal appellate · 49 district · 45 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 387 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2024 · most notably Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary (1981), Matthews v. Rodgers (1932)
116 federal appellate · 49 district · 45 state decisions — followed in 17 states
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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · State Railroad Tax Cases Taylor Collector et al. v. Secor et al. · City of Walla Walla v. Walla Walla Water Co · Dows v. City of Chicago · Buzard v. Houston
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 387 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“an examination of the decisions of this court shows that a proper reluctance to interfere by prevention with the fiscal operations of the state governments has caused it to refrain from so doing in all cases where the Federal rights of the persons could otherwise be preserved unimpaired.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Nor do we think that there is any danger of a multiplicity of suits in the sense that would authorize the issuance of an injunction. One suit only has been brought, and that by direction of the city council. It remains pending, and when it reaches judgment it will determine finally every question in dispute between the parties. There is no need of any other suit except to prevent the running of the statute of limitations, and nothing to indicate that any will be brought. Where the multiplicity of suits to be feared consists in repetitions of suits by the same person against the plaintiff for causes of action arising out of the same facts and legal principles, a court of equity ought not to interfere upon that ground unless it is clearly necessary to protect the plaintiff from continued and vexatious litigation. Something more is required than the beginning of a single action with an honest purpose to settle the rights of the parties. 1 Pom.Eq.Jur. (3d Ed.) § 254. Perhaps it might be necessary to await the final decision of one action at law (see, for analogies, Sharon v. Tucker, 144 U.S. 533 , 12 S.Ct. 720 , 36 L.Ed. 532 ; Boston & Montana Consol. Copper & Silver Mining Co. v. Montana Ore Purchasing Co., 188 U.S. 632 , 23 S.Ct. 434 , 47 L.Ed. 626 ), but that we need not decide.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is safe to say that no case can be found where this court has deliberately approved the issuance of an injunction against the enforcement of an ordinance resting on state authority, merely because it was illegal or unconstitutional, unless further circumstances were shown which brought the case within some clear ground of equity jurisdiction.””
3 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.