48 Cal. App. 363 - Peake v. Harris’s Empirical Analysis
1920
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently March 1979
7 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
Relies on Duckworth v. Watsonville Water & Light Co. · Hargrave v. Cook · Anaheim Water Co. v. Semi-Tropic Water Co. · Mullally v. Townsend · Hoyt v. Hart
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It is also settled that the lower riparian owner, the plaintiff being such owner, cannot complain of the use by an upper riparian owner except by showing that the upper owner uses an unreasonable quantity of the stream, having regard to the needs of the lower owner, and, consequently, that the lower owner cannot enjoin the use by an upper owner unless he alleges such unreasonable use to his injury. (Swift v. Goodrich, 70 Cal. 105 [11 Pac. 561]Hargrave v. Cook, 108 Cal. 77 [30 L. R. A. 390, 41 Pac. 18 ]; Heilbron v. Land etc. Co., 80 Cal. 193 [ 22 Pac. 62 ]; Anaheim W. Co. v. Semi-Tropic Co., 64 Cal. 192 [ 30 Pac. 623 ].)””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Oliver v. Robnett
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.