State of Washington v. State of Oregon’s Empirical Analysis
297 U.S. 517 · 1936
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (16 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Colorado v. New Mexico (1984), Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co. (1938)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 8 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 State of Kansas v. State of Colorado · United States v. Oregon · State of Connecticut v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts · Mutual Life Ins Co of New York v. Johnson · People of State of New Yrok v. State of New Jersey
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““These findings are well supported by the evidence. Complainant has brought forward no adequate reason for disturbing them. Connecticut v. Massachusetts, supra, 282 U. S. 660 , at page 669, 51 S. Ct. 286 , 75 L. Ed. 602 . Accepting them, as we do, we accept also the conclusion to which they point with inescapable directness. To restrain the diversion at the bridge would bring distress and even ruin to a long-established settlement of tillers of the soil for no other or better purpose than to vindicate a barren right. This is not the high equity that moves the conscience of the court in giving judgment between states.” (Citing cases.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The master has found: ‘There is no satisfactory proof that to turn down .water past the Red Bridge in Oregon during the period of water shortage would be materially more advantageous to Washintgon users than to permit such water to be applied to surface irrigation in Oregon.’ and that ‘To limit the long-established use in Oregon would materially injure Oregon users without a compensating benefit to Washington users.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'[b]efore this court can be moved to exercise its extraordinary power under the Constitution to control the conduct of one State at the suit of another,'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Florida v. Georgia
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.