Vinson v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

18 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “From the foregoing review of the decisions of this state on the problem of surface water rights, it is possible to draw several relatively clear conclusions. And yet certain inconsistencies exist which render it difficult to set out a definite statement of the present state of the law. It can safely be said that the Civil Law Rule is the rule in Alabama as this has been repeatedly stated by the court. However, with respect to rural areas, there is authority which would allow an upper owner to collect surface water into a single drain and precipitate it upon the adjoining inferior land, provided he does not thereby burden the lower estate with water which would otherwise have flowed in another direction or upon the land of a third party, and provided he has acted with a prudent regard for the welfare of the lower owner. This exception to the strict rule, it would seem is not a right, but a privilege —a concession granted by the court in the interests of progress and development —which is to be allowed at the discretion of the jury upon a comparison of the benefit to the superior heritage and the resulting injury to the inferior. Even though the more recent cases recognize this exception there is authority to the contrary. . . . * * * * * * Alabama is by no means alone in its dilemma concerning this problem. Regardless of whether a state claims the Civil Law or the Common Enemy Rule, problems arise. The Civil Law Rule, strictly applied, would prohibit any development of the lan”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 376 So. 2d 684 - Mitchell v. MacKin

2. ““This exceptional right or ‘license’ in the upper proprietor to thus increase the burden of the lower estate, in this particular, must in all cases be exercised, as said, ‘with a prudent regard for the welfare of his neighbor,’ and itself arises only under exceptional circumstances and conditions; and as to whether they in fact exist and as to whether, if they do exist, they are sufficient to warrant the exercise of the right or ‘license,’ is to be determined by the jury, in each case, under proper instructions from the court, wherein they would be charged with the duty of determining whether the particular drain or ditch, which caused the damage, was necessary to the improvement of the upper land, whether one elsewhere or in some other method would not have reasonably accomplished the same benefit to the upper estate and resulted in no, or less, damage to the lower, and whether the value of the improvement to the upper land, as a result, so outweighed the detriment to the lower in particular and general good as to authorize it, and whether the upper owner in digging and locating and directing on his own land, the drain (first, so shown to be necessary) acted with proper care and regard for the rights of the lower owner, such care and regard as would prevent, if he could do so reasonably and consistently with the purposes in view, and if he could not, as would minimize, as far as he reasonably could consistent with such purposes, the damage and injury to the lower estate.” 7 ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 349 So. 2d 611 - O.D. King v. P. Adams

3. “As applicable to the facts in the instant case, we are of the opinion that the case of King Land & Improvement Co. v. Bowen, 7 Ala.App. 462 , 61 So. 22, 26 , is decisive. It was there said: "At common law surface water was regarded as a common enemy, and every landed proprietor had the right, as a general proposition, to take any measures necessary for the protection of his own property against its ravages; and the damages resulting in such cases to adjoining owners were regarded as damnum absque injuria, affording no cause of action. Walker v. New Mexico [& S.P.R., Co.], 165 U.S. 593 , 17 S.Ct. 421 , 41 L.Ed. 837 ; Chadeayne v. Robinson, 55 Conn. 345 , 11 A. 592 , 3 Am.St.Rep. 55 . This common-law rule yet obtains in many jurisdictions in this country. But not so in this state. 30 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d Ed.) p. 330, et seq. Here our Supreme Court long ago adopted, and has ever since continuously followed, the rule of the civil law. This rule is founded in general on a principle of natural right, as embodied in the maxim: `Aqua currit et debet currere, ut solebat,' `Water flows, and as it flows, so it ought to flow,' as modified and restrained, under the necessities of advancing civilization, by that other principle that `the rough outline of natural right must submit to the chisel of the mason that it may enter symmetrically into the social structure.' Hughes v. Anderson, 68 Ala. 280 , 44 Am.Rep. 147 . Under this rule, while a person's land is subservient to the adjacent l”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 376 So. 2d 684 - Mitchell v. MacKin