State Ex Rel. Erickson v. McLean’s Empirical Analysis
1957
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 55 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co. (1983), State Ex Rel. Martinez v. City of Las Vegas (2004)
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 55 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 Hough v. Porter · State Ex Rel. Bliss v. Dority · Yeo v. Tweedy · State Ex Rel. State Game Commission v. Red River Valley Co. · Mullan v. State
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Water appropriators and appropriations on each of the artesian basins of the state are numerous. The State is vitally concerned in every appropriation. The need for water is imperative, and often the supply is insufficient. Such conditions lead inevitably to many serious controversies, and demand from the state an exercise of its police power, not only to ascertain rights, but also to regulate and protect them. Regulation, however, is not confiscation. The same may be said as to adjudication. In order to deal with a problem, difficult and peculiar, if for no other reasons because of the vast number of parties and interrelated rights which may be involved, and the rule that no one has a right to use or divert water except for beneficial use is clearly indicated by the framers of our Constitution.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“All water within the state, whether above or beneath the surface of the ground belongs to the state, which authorizes its use, and there is no ownership in the corpus of the water but the use thereof may be acquired and the basis of such acquisition is beneficial use. The state as owner of water has the right to prescribe how it may be used. This the state has done by ... providing] that the beneficial use is the basis, the measure, and limit to the right to the use of water.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Whatever right one has, even in his own, is subject to that established principle that his use shall not be injurious to the rights of others, or of the general public. No surface owner possesses the right to extract the subterranean water in excess of the quantity necessary to supply the beneficial uses to which it has been appropriated by him. Any additional ex- ■ traction is not in the exercise of a right, if by such exercise the rights of others and the public are injuriously affected.”
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.