State Ex Rel. Bliss v. Dority’s Empirical Analysis
1950
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 71 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 89 later decisions — most recently March 2015 · most notably State Ex Rel. Hovey Concrete Products Co. v. Mechem (1957), City of Albuquerque v. Reynolds (1962)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 71 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 30 U.S.C. § 52 · 43 U.S.C. § 321 · 43 U.S.C. § 661
Relies on Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan · Sproles v. Binford · United States v. Rio Grande Dam & Irrigation Co. · Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio · California Oregon Power Co. v. Beaver Portland Cement Co.
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 89 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Legislative enactments may be declared void for uncertainty if their meaning is so uncertain that the court is unable, by the application of known and accepted rules of construction, to determine what the legislature intended with any reasonable degree of certainty. But absolute or mathematical certainty is not required in the framing of a statute.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The unappropriated water of every natural stream, perennial or torrential, within the state of New Mexico, is hereby declared to belong to the public and to be subject to appropriation for beneficial use, in accordance with the laws of the state. Priority of appropriation shall give the better right.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The public waters of this state are owned by the state as trustee for the people, Murphy v. Kerr, D.C., 296 F. 536 ; and it is authorized to institute suits to protect the public waters against unlawful use, or to bring any other action whether authorized by any particular statute, if required by its pecuniary interests or for the general public welfare, 49 A.J., ‘States, Territories & Dependencies’, Sec. 80. * * * ””
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.