Simonson v. Moon’s Empirical Analysis
1951
Citation profile
11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2015
11 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
Relies on Reynolds Irr. Dist. v. Sproat · Tomchak v. Harris · In Re Appeal From the Department of Reclamation · Pioneer Irrigation District v. Smith · Morgan v. Udy
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The [district] court was also in error in requiring the defendants Wells and Moon ... to confine their use [of the ditch] to the number of inches of water which their respective shares in the canal company represent____ From the record here it appears that the method of distribution employed by this company and its users provides the user with a larger flow of water, when available, than his shares represent. This enables him to complete his current irrigation in a comparatively short time, after which the water is shut off. Under ordinary conditions this method results in better irrigation of the crops, and with less waste of water, than can be accomplished with a smaller stream of continuous flow or over a longer peiiod. Therefore, the court should not limit the defendants to the number of inches of flow represented by their shares in the canal company.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Prior to the enactment of this statute the right of the owner of the servient tenement to change the place or location of an easement did not exist. (Citations omitted.) It follows that the statute must be fully complied with by one seeking to exercise the right it confers. The burden was on the plaintiffs to show that they provided the defendants Moon with another ditch which would convey the water, which they had heretofore conveyed through the branch B-E, to the point of delivery at E without impeding the flow thereof, and without injury either to the defendants Moon or the defendants Wells. Tomchak v. Harris, 54 Idaho 448 , 32 P.2d 1025 . (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Change of lateral ditch. — Where any lateral ditch has heretofore been, or may hereafter be, constructed across the lands of another, the person or persons owning or controlling the said land shall have the right at their own expense to change said lateral ditch to any other part of said land, but such change must be made in such a manner as not to impede the flow of the water therein, or to otherwise injure any person or persons using or interested in such lateral ditch.” (Emphasis supplied.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ramseyer v. Jamerson
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.