United States v. District Court in & for the County of Eagle’s Empirical Analysis
1971
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 35 district · 81 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 189 later decisions (19 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States (1976), United States v. District Court (1971)
42 federal appellate · 35 district · 81 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. § 666
Relies on Dugan v. Rank · State of Arizona v. State of California · Mackay v. Nesbett · Pacific Live Stock Co. v. Lewis
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 189 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"§ 666. Suits for adjudication of water rightsJoinder of United States as defendant; costs. (a) Consent is given to join the United States as a defendant in any suit (1) for the adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source, or (2) for the administration of such rights, where it appears that the United States is the owner of or is in the process of acquiring water rights by appropriation under State law, by purchase, by exchange, or otherwise, and the United States is a necessary party to such suit. The United States, when a party to any such suit, shall (1) be deemed to have waived any right to plead that the State laws are inapplicable or that the United States is not amenable thereto by reason of its sovereignty, and (2) shall be subject to the judgments, orders, and decrees of the court having jurisdiction, and may obtain review thereof, in the same manner and to the same extent as a private individual under like circumstances: Provided, That no judgment for costs shall be entered against the United States in any such suit." 43 U.S.C. § 666 (Emphasis added.)”
16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“S. 18 is not intended . . . to be used for any other purpose than to allow the United States to be joined in a suit wherein it is necessary to adjudicate all of the rights of various owners on a given stream. This is so because unless all of the parties owning or in the process of acquiring water rights on a particular stream can be joined as' parties defendant, any subsequent decree would be of little value.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“adjudication of rights to the use of water of a river system or other source.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. United States of America, and Klamath Allottees Water Users Association Klamath Tribe, Plaintiffs-Intervenors v. State of Oregon, Water Resources Department, and William H. Young, Director, United States of America, and Klamath Allottees Water Users Association, Plaintiff-Intervenor, and Klamath Tribe, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. State of Oregon, Water Resources Department, and William H. Young, Director, United States of America, and Klamath Allottees Water Users Association, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellant v. State of Oregon, Water Resources Department, and William H. Young, Director, United States of America, and Klamath Allottees Water Users Association Klamath Tribe, Plaintiffs-Intervenors v. State of Oregon, Water Resources Department, and William H. Young, Director · Federal Y. Ctr. v. Dist. Ct., Cty. of Jefferson
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.