Bilger v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1911
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2014 · most notably Port of Seattle v. Oregon & Washington Railroad (1921), Asplund v. Hannett (1926)
29 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 Eisenbach v. Hatfield · Lancey v. King County · Jones v. Reed · Grays Harbor Boom Co. v. Lownsdale · Brace & Hergert Mill Co. 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We need not, of course, inquire in this action what remedy the respondents have against the state on account of its failure to except this previously granted right to the United States from the conveyance it made to them of the shore lands. Whether the present normal water level marks the lake boundary of these conveyances, and their remedy is for a breach of warranty express or implied in the deed of conveyance, or whether the state actually conveyed to them all the land lying between the boundary of the uplands and the normal level of the lake as it will appear when lowered . . . must be reserved for determination in some future action where the question is necessarily presented.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. State v. Sturtevant““Again, it is said that the United States has never undertaken to construct the canal, and that this court so held in State ex rel. Burke v. Board of Com'rs, 58 Wash. 511 , 109 Pac. 350 . In the case cited we did say that there was no sufficient evidence of any intention or proposal on the part of the government to construct or operate the canal, but that was said prior to the act of the 2d session of the 61st Congress, which appropriated $150,000 for that purpose, and made available for the same purpose some $2,124,000 more. This latter act set all doubts on the question at rest, and there can no longer be any question as to the intent and purpose of the government.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage“While, generally speaking, an officer is one employed on behalf of the government, in a strict legal sense it means an employment on behalf of the government in some fixed and permanent capacity, not in a capacity merely transient, occasional, or incidental. Those engaged in mere transient or occasional employments on behalf of- the municipality are more properly employees than officers. ” (Bilger v. State, 63 Wash. 457 , 116 Pac. 19 .)”
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.