64 Cal. 2d 396 - Keys v. Romley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

156 state decisions

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

1. ““... [N]o rule can be applied by a court of justice with utter disregard for the peculiar facts and circumstances of the parties and properties involved. No party, whether an upper or a lower landowner, may act arbitrarily and unreasonably in his relations with other landowners and still be immunized from all liability. It is therefore incumbent upon every person to take reasonable care in using his property to avoid injury to adjacent property through the flow of surface water. Failure to exercise reasonable care may result in liability by an upper to a lower landowner. It is equally the duty of any person threatened with injury to his property by the flow of surface waters to take reasonable precautions to avoid or reduce any actual or potential injury. If the actions of both the upper and lower landowners are reasonable, necessary, and generally in accord with the foregoing, then the injury must necessarily be borne by the upper landowner who changes a natural system of drainage, in accordance with our traditional civil law rule.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 47 Cal. 3d 550 - Belair v. Riverside County Flood Control District · 7 Cal. 4th 327 - Locklin v. City of Lafayette

2. ““As promulgated in the leading case of Sheehan v. Flynn, 59 Minn. 436 , 61 N.W. 462 , 26 L.R.A. 632 , and as amplified by subsequent decisions, the rule is that in effecting a reasonable use of his land for a legitimate purpose a landowner, acting in good faith, may drain his land of surface waters and cast them as a burden upon the land of another, although such drainage carries with it some waters which would otherwise have never gone that way but would have remained on the land until they were absorbed by the soil or evaporated in the air, if “(a) There is a reasonable necessity for such drainage; “(b) If reasonable care be taken to avoid unnecessary injury to the land receiving the burden; “(c) If the utility or benefit accruing to the land drained reasonably outweighs the gravity of the harm resulting to the land receiving the burden; and “(d) If, where practicable, it is accomplished by reasonably improving and aiding the normal and natural system of drainage according to its reasonable carrying capacity, or if, in the absence of a practicable natural drain, a reasonable and feasible artificial drainage system is adopted.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Klutey v. Commonwealth, Department of Highways · Torres v. Bennett

3. “Water diffused over the surface of land, or contained in depressions therein, and resulting from rain, snow, or which rises to the surface in springs, is known as `surface water.' It is thus distinguishable from water flowing in a fixed channel, so as to constitute a watercourse, or water collected in an identifiable body, such as a river or lake. The extraordinary overflow of rivers and streams is known as `flood water.' (Tiffany on Real Property (3d ed.) § 740; 8 Cal.L.Rev. 197.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 7 Cal. 4th 327 - Locklin v. City of Lafayette · 94 Cal. App. 4th 877 - LOMBARD ACCEPTANCE v. Town of San Anselmo