Trice v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 7 later decisions — most recently August 2012
7 state decisions
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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 1344 · 33 U.S.C. § 401 · 33 U.S.C. § 403 · 33 U.S.C. § 491 · 33 U.S.C. § 525 (General Bridge Act of 1946)
Relies on Hillsborough County v. Automated Medical Laboratories, Inc. · Silver v. New York Stock Exchange · Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, Inc. v. Hostetter · Escanaba Lake Michigan Transp Co v. City of Chicago · Fort Worth Elevators Co. v. Russell
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.
“The regulatory scheme of the State can be harmonized and co-exist with the regulatory scheme at the national level. The effect of the federal regulatory scheme, as it relates to the construction of a bridge across the Brazos River, can be reasonably interpreted to make the erection of such a bridge dependent upon the State’s concurrent or joint assent. See Cummings v. [City of] Chicago, 188 U.S. 410 , [431] (1903). Without the State’s consent, [appellant] could not have lawfully erected the bridge even if he had obtained the proper permit from the federal government. See id. Accordingly, because the federal regulatory scheme clearly envisions the right of the State to grant or withhold its permission, the two regulatory schemes do not conflict. In the absence of a conflict, the Supremacy Clause does not nullify the State’s regulatory authority over the navigable waters within its boundaries. See Hillsborough County, Fla. [v. Auto. Med. Labs., 471 U.S. 707, 713 , 105 S.Ct. 2371 , 85 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985)].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the State established that it was `entitled to recover' damages by obtaining a jury finding to that effect. This finding established its right to recover reasonable attorney's fees under Article 3917”
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.