Beaver v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
350 F.2d 4 · 1965
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably United States v. Georgia-Pacific Co. (1970), Bonelli Cattle Co. v. Arizona (1973)
25 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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
Applies 43 U.S.C. § 1068
Relies on Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Utah Power Light Company v. United States No 202 United States · Philadelphia Co. v. Stimson · Johnson v. Stevenson · United States v. City & County of San Francisco
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““A brief statement of the physical situation will aid in understanding the various contentions. The Colorado River (hereafter, the river), the boundary between Arizona and California, runs generally east to west along the southern boundary of the tract in question . . The tract in question is in the same physical location as land patented to appellants’ predecessor in title in 1914, and, at that time, located in Arizona. Prior to 1902, the river in this area flowed in a channel located several thousand feet north of its present location and along the southern boundary of Section 4. Between 1902 and 1942 the river channel moved in a southerly direction until it established the channel approximately in its present location. “It is the contention of the United States that the river channel arrived at its present location by a slow accretive movement, eroding the southern (Arizona) bank of the channel and depositing soil on the northern (California) bank. In this manner the land claimed by appellants was washed away and the tract in question was added by accretion to Section 4, owned by the United States; under well-settled principles the tract thus belongs to the United States. Appellants, on the other hand, contend that the river arrived in its present location by several avulsive movements and for this reason the state boundary and the property line boundaries in the area were permanently fixed at the site of the 1902-1912 channel. Therefore, appellants say, the tract is still”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““As an alternative theory of recovery, appellants raised a title claim under the doctrine of re-emergence. That doctrine rests upon ‘easy identification’ of riparian land ‘lost’ and ‘found’ again by re-emergence from the stream bed. These elements are not here present.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[O]fficers who have no authority at all to dispose of Government property cannot by their conduct cause the Government to lose its valuable rights by their acquiescence, laches, or failure to act.”
2 later decisions 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.