Longmire v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1901
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2002 · most notably State, Dept. of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn (2002), Department of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, L.L.C. (2002)
3 federal appellate · 22 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 Geddis v. Parrish · Offield v. Ish · Thorpe v. Tenem Ditch Co. · Dougherty v. Haggin
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the claim of prior appropriations and beneficial use of sufficient water from the Wenas river for the purpose of irrigating the respective parcels of land owned by him be established, then the plaintiff’s right to the use of the water is superior to all other claims, whether founded upon appropriation or riparian ownership. The lands in the Wenas valley are generally arid, and require artificial irrigation to successfully produce ordinary agricultural crops. The right to appropriate water from the water courses on the public domain was founded upon the necessity and customs of settlers in the arid regions, and was authorized by the federal government, the owner of both the land and the water. It is an elementary principle of the law of appropriation of water for irrigation that the first appropriator is entitled to the quantity of water appropriated by him, to the exclusion of subsequent claimants by appropriation or riparian ownership.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The fact that he [plaintiff] did not describe a definite measurement of what he used, and that there was no clear and satisfactory proof showing the amount required, does not deprive him of his rights.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The term ‘miners’ inch’ cannot be definite, without the specification of the head or pressure, and the witnesses continually vary when speaking of the pressure in the ‘miners’ inch.’ ””
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.