Arizona Copper Company v. William Allen Gillespie’s Empirical Analysis
230 U.S. 46 · 1913
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 11 district · 29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2011 · most notably United Steelworkers v. United States (1959), Reserve Mining Company, a Minnesota Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency and William D. Ruckelshaus, Individually Andas Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Reserve Mining Company v. United States of America, United States of America v. Reserve Mining Company, Reserve Mining Company v. United States of America, the State of Wisconsin v. Reserve Mining Company, Minnesota Environmental Law Institute, Inc. v. United States of America, the State of Michigan v. Reserve Mining Company (1975)
30 federal appellate · 11 district · 29 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 United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n · Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co. · Wakeman v. Wheeler & Wilson Manufacturing Co. · Story v. . New York Elevated R.R. Co. · City of New York v. Samuel Pine
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Whether * * * a court of equity will restrain the acts of the party complained of, or leave the plaintiff to his action at law for damages, must depend upon the nature of the injury alleged, whether it be irremediable in its nature, or whether an action at law will afford an adequate remedy, and upon a variety of circumstances, including the comparative injury by granting or refusing the injunction.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“What diminution of quantity, or deterioration of quality, will constitute an invasion of the rights of the first appropriator will depend on the special circumstances of each case, considered with reference to the uses to which the water is applied. A slight deterioration in quality might render the water unfit for drink or domestic purposes, whilst it would not sensibly impair its value for mining or irrigation. In all controversies, therefore, between him and parties subsequently claiming the water, the question for determination is necessarily whether his use and enjoyment of the water to the extent of his original appropriation have been impaired by the acts of the defendant.”
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.