Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 66 U.S. 23 - Dutton v. Strong

Dutton v. Strong’s Empirical Analysis

66 U.S. 23 · 1861

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
May 2010
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 11 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2010 · most notably Shively v. Bowlby (1894), Illinois Central Railroad v. Illinois (1892)

7 federal appellate · 11 district · 8 state decisions

1601861187018801890190019101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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 The Propeller Genesee Chief Pierce Kelsey Cheney Hunter Swan Clark Strong v. Fitzhugh Littlejohn Peck · Franklin Moore George Foot and George Bagley v. The American Transportation Company · Peisch v. Ware · Hart v. Mayor of Albany

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

  1. ““Piers and landing places, and even wharves, may be private, or they maybe in their nature public, although the property may be in an individual owner; or, in other words, the owner may have,the right to the exclusive enjoyment of the structure, and to exclude all other persons from its use; or he may be under obligation to concede to others the privilege of landing their goods, or of mooring their vessels there, upon the payment of a reasonable compensation as wharfagé.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Wherever the water of the shore, so to speak, is too shoal to be navigable, there is the same necessity for such erections as in the bays and arms of the sea; and where that necessity exists it is difficult to see any reason for denying to the adjacent owner the right to supply it; but the right must be understood as terminating at the point of navigability where the necessity for such erections ordinarily ceases.””
    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.