Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 379 Mich. 667 - Thompson v. Enz

Thompson v. Enz’s Empirical Analysis

1967

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
6
states following
July 2017
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently July 2017 · most notably 172 Ind. App. 434 - Brown v. Heidersbach (1977), Stupak-Thrall v. United States (1996)

10 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

120196719701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “First, attention should be given to the watercourse and its attributes, including its size, character and natural state____ Second, the trial court should examine the use itself as to its type, extent, necessity, effect on the quantity, quality and level of the water, and the purposes of the users____ Third, it is necessary to examine the proposed artificial use in relation to the consequential effects, including the benefits obtained and the detriment suffered, on the correlative rights and interests of other riparian proprietors and also on the interests of the State, including fishing, navigation, and conservation.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “reasonable in light of the correlative rights of the other proprietors.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““ ““ * * * There are certain interests and rights vested in the shore owner which grow out of his special connection with such waters as an owner. These rights are common to all riparian owners on the same body of water, and they rest entirely upon the fact of title in the fee to the shore land.’ ” ’ ” (Original emphasis.)”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.