State of Arizona v. State of California’s Empirical Analysis
1963
Citation profile
235 federal appellate · 101 district · 208 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 905 later decisions (111 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976), Russello v. United States (1983)
235 federal appellate · 101 district · 208 state decisions — followed in 22 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1251 · 43 U.S.C. § 383 · 43 U.S.C. § 389 · 43 U.S.C. § 431 · 43 U.S.C. § 617
Relies on Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer · Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States · Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan · Schwegmann Bros. v. Calvert Distillers Corp. · Shively v. Bowlby
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 905 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Court in Winters concluded that the Government, when it created that Indian Reservation, intended to deal fairly with the Indians by reserving for them the waters without which their lands would have been useless. Winters has been followed by this Court as recently as 1939 in United States v. Powers, 305 U.S. 527 , 59 S.Ct. 344, 83 L.Ed. 330. We follow it now and agree that the United States did reserve the water rights for the Indians effective as of the time the Indian Reservations were created. This means, as the Master held, that these water rights, having vested before the Act became effective on June 25, 1929, are `present perfected rights' and as such are entitled to priority under the Act. 31 "We also agree with the Master's conclusion as to the quantity of water intended to be reserved. He found that the water was intended to satisfy the future as well as the present needs of the Indian Reservations and ruled that enough water was reserved to irrigate all the practicably irrigable acreage on the reservations.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"* * * The principle that authority granted by the legislature must be limited by adequate standards serves two primary functions vital to preserving the separation of powers required by the Constitution. [footnote omitted] First, it insures that the fundamental policy decisions in our society will be made not by an appointed official but by the body immediately responsible to the people. Second, it prevents judicial review from becoming merely an exercise at large by providing the courts with some measure against which to judge the official action that has been challenged." (emphasis in original) 373 U.S. at 626 , 83 S.Ct. at 1511 , 10 L.Ed.2d at 604 .”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“* * * The general authority to make contracts normally includes the power to choose with whom and upon what terms the contracts will be made. When Congress in an Act grants authority to contract, that authority is no less than the general authority, unless Congress has placed some limit on it. * * * [Emphasis supplied.]”
5 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.