Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 71 CONN 31 - Ockerhausen v. Tyson

Ockerhausen v. Tyson’s Empirical Analysis

1898

Citation profile

6
cited by 6 later decisions
2
states following
December 1970
most recently cited

6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1970

6 state decisions

20189819001910192019301940195019601970decided

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 Simons v. French · Mather v. Chapman · Nichols v. Lewis

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

  1. ““The defendant, by filling up the flats immediately adjacent to the plaintiffs’ upland, which were the subject of their riparian rights and franchise, converted the shore of the river within the cove . . . into real estate. He thus did what only the plaintiffs could lawfully do, and -the land so made became an accession to their land, precisely as if they had made it. . . . “Each had also a certain right to reclaim the flats which adjoined his premises. It was one to be exercised with due regard to the like rights held by others. Its limits were to be determined by the simple rule, ‘Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.’ [Use your own property in such a manner as not to injure that of another.] (Citations omitted) This unerring test of human conduct forbade the defendant, on the strength of his ownership of the land opposite to the mouth of the cove and the channel of the river, to fill out to that channel in such a way as to blot the whole cove out of existence. It also precluded his gaining title by reclamation to the shore immediately contiguous to the plaintiffs’ land.””
    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.