United States v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
312 U.S. 592 · 1941
Citation profile
130 federal appellate · 31 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 422 later decisions (47 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2017 · most notably Kaiser Aetna v. United States (1979), United States ex rel. Tennessee Valley Authority v. Powelson (1943)
130 federal appellate · 31 district · 42 state decisions — followed in 10 states
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
reviewedUnited States v. Chicago, M., St. P. & P. R. (from Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co. · United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. · United States v. Cress · United States v. Arthur Lynah · Scranton v. Wheeler
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 422 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * And the determination of the necessity for a given improvement of navigable capacity, and the character and extent of it, is for Congress alone. Whether, under local law, 2 the title to the bed of the stream is retained by the State or the title of the riparian owner extends to the thread of the stream, or, as in this case, to low water mark, the rights of the title holder are subordinate to the dominant power of the federal Government in respect of navigation. “The power of Congress extends not only to keeping clear the channels of interstate navigation by the prohibition or removal of actual obstructions located by the riparian owner, or others, but comprehends as well the power to improve and enlarge their navigability. “The bed of a river is ‘that portion of its soil which is alternately covered and left bare, as there may be an increase or diminution in the supply of water, and which is adequate to contain it at its average and mean stage during the entire year, without reference to the extraordinary freshets of the winter or spring, or the extreme droughts of the summer or autumn.’ “The dominant power of the federal Government, as has been repeatedly held, extends to the entire bed of a stream, which includes the lands below ordinary high water mark. The exercise of the power within these limits is not an invasion of any private property right in such lands for which the United States must make compensation. The damage sustained results not from a taking of the ”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a]n owner of riparian land ... has a qualified right to make fills and build wharves in the river. But exercise of this qualified right does not affect the power of the United States with regard to navigation. ‘Structures in the bed of a navigable stream ... may be injured or destroyed without compensation by a federal improvement of navigable capacity.’”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be confined to the facts there disclosed.”
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.