Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 45 MONT 154 - Bailey v. Tintinger

Bailey v. Tintinger’s Empirical Analysis

1912

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

60 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2024 · most notably Skelton Ranch, Inc. v. Pondera County Canal & Reservoir Co. (2014), Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation v. Intake Water Co. (1976)

60 state decisions

160191219201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Jennison v. Kirk · Broder v. Water Co. · Gutierres v. Albuquerque Land & Irrigation Co. · Smith v. Denniff · Nevada Ditch Co. v. Bennett

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

  1. “In cases of appropriation for the purpose of supplying water to others, we do not understand how it can be said that the use of the water is an essential element of its appropriation. If the intended appropriator constructs the works and appliances necessary for the diversion of the water and the carrying of it to points where its use is desirable and profitable, and has actually carried it there, or is ready and willing to do so and offers it to all persons who are willing to pay for its use, we apprehend that his appropriation is complete.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The method of acquiring a right to the use of water as there prescribed is not exclusive. One may by a prior actual and completed appropriation and use, without proceeding under the code, acquire a right to the water beneficially used, which will be superior and paramount to the title of one making a subsequent appropriation from the same stream in the manner provided by that statute.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “An appropriation may be made by a complete, actual diversion for a beneficial purpose, without following the statute, or else by proceeding under the statute.”
    1 later decision 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.