Wheat v. Cameron’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 district · 23 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is argued by defendants’ learned counsel that no intent to make an appropriation from Mill Creek on the part of [plaintiffs’ predecessors] is shown, and therefore the adjudication is not warranted. ... Intent to appropriate will be presumed from these facts, showing, as they do, diversion and use of Mill Creek waters for irrigating purposes. A claimant’s intent at the time of appropriation must be determined by his act and by surrounding circumstances, its actual and contemplated use, and the purpose thereof. (Toohey v. Campbell, 24 Mont. 13 , 60 Pac. 396 .) Actual diversion and beneficial use existing or in contemplation constitute an appropriation [citations omitted], and from this evidence it is plain that water from Mill Creek was in fact appropriated in the spring of 1867 by [plaintiffs’ predecessors], as found by the court. And the change in the point of diversion or place of use did not affect the appropriation.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re the Adjudication of the Existing Rights to the Use of All the Water