In re Mattson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It is no reason for this assumption of legislative control by Oregon within the boundaries of Washington that the latter state has the right to legislate similarly with reference to the river. Washington is precluded, by the legislation of Oregon over the river, from legislating otherwise. What is thus accorded to Washington is not a right, but the necessity of acquiescence, to avoid a conflict of jurisdiction. How can this state, more than Washington, determine the right of the citizens of Washington to fish in the waters of that state, or prescribe the days for such fishing? Washington is wholly foreclosed in the premises by the action of Oregon in determining the question for both states. How can this be called the exercise of a concurrent jurisdic tion? The word ‘concurrent,’ in its legal and generally 'accepted definition, means acting in conjunction, and, when applied to the jurisdiction of Oregon, to enact penal laws for the Columbia river, it can only mean the power to enact such criminal statutes as are agreed to or acquiesced in by the state of Washington, or as are already in force within its jurisdiction.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ex parte Desjeiro