Federal Power Commission v. Oregon’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

88 federal appellate · 18 district · 39 state decisions

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

1. ““The State participated in the hearing before the Commission. It there vigorously objected to the issuance of the license upon the grounds, among others, ‘[t]hat the reservoirs which would be created by the proposed dams would inundate a valuable and irreplaceable fish hatchery owned by the State’ and, hence, necessarily require the taking of it by the City under the license sought; that the City had not complied with the applicable laws of the State respecting construction of the project and performance of the acts necessarily incident thereto (note 11); and that the City was not authorized by the laws of the State to engage in such business. The Commission rejected these contentions of the State and made all the findings required by the Act to support its order granting the license (note 9) including the finding that: “ ‘The applicant . . . has submitted satisfactory evidence of compliance with the requirements of all applicable State laws insofar as necessary to effect the purposes of a license for the project; and it is a municipality within the meaning of Section 3 (7) of the Act.’ The State then petitioned the Commission for a rehearing, reviving the foregoing contentions and raising others. The petition was denied. “Thereafter, the State, following the procedures prescribed by § 313 (b), petitioned the proper Court of Appeals for review of the Commission’s findings and order. After full hearing, that court rejected all contentions there raised by the State, did not dis”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. 60 Wash. 2d 66 - City of Tacoma v. Taxpayers of Tacoma

2. ““ ‘Public lands’ are lands subject to private appropriation and disposal under public land laws. ‘Reservations’ are not so subject. The title to the lands upon which the eastern terminus of the dam is to rest has been in the United States since the cession by Great Britain of the area now comprising the State of Oregon. Even if formerly they may have been open to private appropriation as ‘public lands,’ they were withdrawn from such availability before any vested interests conflicting with the Pelton Project were acquired. Title to the bed of the Deschutes River is also in the United States. Since the Indian Treaty of 1855, the lands within the Indian reservation, upon which the western end of the dam will rest, have been reserved for the use of the Indians. More recently, they were reserved for power purposes and the Indians have given their consent to the project before us.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State of Nevada Ex Rel. Shamberger v. United States

3. “The purpose of the Acts of 1866 and 1870 was governmental recognition and sanction of possessory rights on public lands asserted under local laws and customs. [Citation.] The Desert Land Act severed, for purposes of private acquisition, soil and water rights on public lands .... [¶] [T]hese acts are not applicable to the reserved lands and waters here involved.... The lands before us in this case are not `public lands' but `reservations.' Even without that express restriction of the Desert Land Act to sources of water supply on public lands, these Acts would not apply to reserved lands.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 44 Cal. 3d 448 - In Re Water of Hallett Creek Stream System