Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 265 U.S. 493 - Oklahoma v. Texas

Oklahoma v. Texas’s Empirical Analysis

265 U.S. 493 · 1924

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
January 2000
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2000

7 federal appellate · 9 state decisions

50192419301940195019601970198019902000decided

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 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. State of West Virginia State of Ohio · County of St. Clair v. Lovingston · State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas · State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas. United States, Intervener · State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas

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

  1. ““The south bank of the river is the water-washed and relatively permanent elevation or activity, commonly called a cut bank, along the southerly side of the river, which separates its bed from the adjacent upland, whether valley or hill, and usually serves to confine the waters within the bed, and to preserve the course of the river. “The boundary between the two States is on and along that bank at the mean level attained by the waters of the river when they reach and wash the bank without overflowing it. “At exceptional places where there is no well defined cut bank, but only a gradual incline from the sand bed of the river to the upland, the boundary is a line over such incline conforming to the mean level of the waters when at other places in that vicinity they reach and wash the cut bank without overflowing it. ********** “The boundary line is a gradient of the flowing water in the river. It is located midway between the lower level of the flowing water that just reaches the cut bank, and the higher level of it that just does not overtop the cut bank.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the bank intended by the treaty provision is the water-washed and relatively permanent elevation or acclivity at the outer line of the river bed which separates the bed from the adjacent upland, whether valley or hill, and serves to confine the waters within the bed and to preserve the course of the river, and that the boundary intended is on and along the bank at the average or mean level attained by the waters in the periods when they reach and wash the bank without overflowing it. When we speak of the bed, we include all of the area which is kept practically bare of vegetation by the wash of the waters of the river from year to year in their onward course, although parts of it are left dry for months at a time; and we exclude the lateral valleys, which have the characteristics of relatively fast land, and usually are covered by upland grasses and vegetation, although temporarily overflowed in exceptional instances when the river is at flood.”
    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.