State of Wyoming v. State of Colorado’s Empirical Analysis
286 U.S. 494 · 1932
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 97 later decisions (23 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2012 · most notably May Department Stores Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (1945), Ex parte Republic of Peru (1943)
30 federal appellate · 6 district · 7 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 Southern Pacific Railroad v. United States · Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. State of West Virginia State of Ohio · Hudson County Water Co. v. McCarter · State of Kansas v. State of Colorado · Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co.
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 97 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But it is said that water claims other than the tunnel appropriation could not be, and were not, affected by the decree, because the claimants were not parties to the suit or represented therein. In this the nature of the suit is misconceived. It was one between states, each acting as a quasi sovereign and representative of the interests and rights of her people in a controversy with the other. Counsel for Colorado insisted in their brief in that suit that the controversy was “not between private parties” but “between the two sovereignties of Wyoming and Colorado”; and this court in its opinion assented to that view, but observed that the controversy was one of immediate and deep concern to both states and that the interests of each were indissolubly linked with those of her appropriators. 259 U.S. [419] 468, 42 S.Ct. 552 , 66 L.Ed. 999 . Decisions in other cases also warrant the conclusion that the water claimants in Colorado, and those in Wyoming, were represented by their respective states and are bound by the decree.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * the question of priority in time and right * * * was directly presented by the pleadings and evidence and distinctly dealt with and resolved in the [prior] opinion”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Anselmo v. Hardin
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.