Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

100 federal appellate · 30 district · 78 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 289 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The rule that where the same matter is brought before courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the one first obtaining jurisdiction will retain it until the controversy is determined, to the entire exclusion of the other, and will maintain and protect its jurisdiction by an appropriate injunction, is confined in its operation to instances where both suits are substantially the same, that is to say, where there is substantial identity in the interests represented, in the rights asserted and in the purposes sought. Buck v. Colbath, 3 Wall. 334, 345 [ 18 L. Ed. 257 ]; Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, 715 [ 20 L. Ed. 666 ]; Rickey Land Co. v. Miller & Lux, 218 U. S. 258, 262 [ 31 S. Ct. 11 , 54 L. Ed. 1032 ]. This is not such an instance. The proceeding sought to be enjoined, although in some respects resembling the prior suits, is essentially different from them. They are merely private suits brought to restrain alleged encroachments upon the plaintiff’s water right, and, while requiring an ascertainment of the rights of the parties in the waters of the river, as between themselves, it is certain that they do not require any other or further determination respecting those waters. Unlike them, the proceeding in question is a quasi public proceeding, set in motion by a public agency for the state. All claimants are required to appear and prove their claims; no one can refuse without forfeiting his claim, and all have the same relation to the proceeding. It is intended to be universal and”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Oregon · United States of America, and Klamath Allottees Water Users Association Klamath Tribe, Plaintiffs-Intervenors v. State of Oregon, Water Resources Department, and William H. Young, Director, United States of America, and Klamath Allottees Water Users Association, Plaintiff-Intervenor, and Klamath Tribe, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. State of Oregon, Water Resources Department, and William H. Young, Director, United States of America, and Klamath Allottees Water Users Association, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. State of Oregon, Water Resources Department, and William H. Young, Director, United States of America, and Klamath Allottees Water Users Association Klamath Tribe, Plaintiffs-Intervenors v. State of Oregon, Water Resources Department, and William H. Young, Director

2. ““The rale that where the same matter is brought before courts of concurrent jurisdiction, the one first obtaining jurisdiction will retain it until the controversy is determined, to the entire exclusion of the other, and will maintain and protect its jurisdiction by an appropriate injunction, is confined in its operation to instances where both suits are substantially the same; that is to say, where there is substantial identity in the interests represented, in the rights asserted, and in the purposes sought.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. Humboldt Lovelock Irr. Light & Power Co. · Jefferson Standard Life Ins. v. Keeton

3. ““It is not necessary here to decide whether the proceeding by the board to determine water rights is judicial or administrative. To a large extent it is administrative, but, like many proceedings of that character, the board must also act in a quasi- judicial capacity. A determination of the water rights to a stream finally ends as a report to the circuit court, and a decree of final determination by that court. The board is required to take testimony which consumes the time of a stenographer paid by the state; to make, through the state engineer, an examination of the stream and the works diverting water therefrom, including the measurement of the discharge of the stream and of the capacity of the various ditches and canals; to examine and measure the irrigated lands and to gather such other data as may be necessary; to reduce the same to writing and make it a matter of record in the office of the state engineer; to make maps and plats of the various ditches and of the stream— all at the expense of the state. That these services are beneficial to the claimant and necessary to the preservation of his rights in the stream and the protection and assurance of his title goes without saying. The people in general, for instance taxpayers in the western part of the state, have little or no interest in the determination of the question as to whether the title of the Pacific Live Stock Company to a particular quantity of water is settled one way or the other. The proceeding is primari”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Stewart v. Verde River Irrigation & Power District