Olin v. Kitzmiller’s Empirical Analysis
259 U.S. 260 · 1922
Citation profile
6 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 37 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2010 · most notably 302 F. Supp. 899 - Sohappy v. Smith (1969), 238 Ill. 2d 262 - Hubble v. Bi-State Development Agency (2010)
6 district · 30 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedOlin v. Kitzmiller (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Olin v. Kitzmiller
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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The plaintiffs challenge the validity of this legislation on the ground that it is in conflict with a compact between the states of Oregon and Washington, approved and ratified by Congress in April, 1918 ( 40 Stat. 515 ), by the terms of which it was agreed that ‘all laws and regulations now existing, or which may be necessary for regnlating, protecting, or preserving fish in the waters of the Columbia river, over which the states of Oregon and Washington have concurrent jurisdiction, or any other waters within either of said states, which would affect said concurrent jurisdiction, shall be made, changed, altered, and amended in whole or in part, only with the mutual consent and approbation of both states.’ At the time the compact became effective the taking of fish with stationary wheels and seines, within the territorial limits of the respective states, was permitted by the laws thereof, and the plaintiff’s position is that that fact, in connection with the compact, inhibits either state from prohibiting the taking of fish with such appliances within its own territorial limits without the consent of the other. If this is unsound, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief demanded. The object of the compact was to deal with the preservation and protection of fish in the waters over which the two. states have concurrent jurisdiction, and to that end it provided that all laws and regulations necessary therefor, which would affect such concurrent jurisdiction, shall be mad”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“we cannot conclude that the parties intended by the identical provision [in the 1918 Columbia River Compact] to obligate themselves to issue any fishing license; the purpose was to limit the classes of persons who might have [licenses]— beyond which the State might not go.”
1 later decision 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.