Sturgeon v. Brooks’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

43 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"In Sturgeon v. Brooks, 281 P.2d at 683-684 , this court said: "`* * * We might say at this point, plaintiff Sturgeon testified that he acquired the land on which the reservoir in question is located in 1936 or 1937. The reservoir rights in question here had not been put in use for five years previously and were not put to use until 1951 or 1952. Yet he waited sixteen or seventeen years before bringing an action of forfeiture, and that after the defendant Brooks had twice repaired the reservoir and had recommenced to use the water. The testimony does not disclose the outlay, but judging from the fact that plaintiff Sturgeon had offered to contribute $500 to the repair of the dam of the reservoir, the expenditure by Brooks must have been at least substantial. Waiting sixteen or seventeen years to bring an action for forfeiture would, on its face, seem to be an unreasonable time, especially in view of the facts just stated.' (Emphasis added.) "The court then went on to explain that had the reservoir water not been put to use, the result might not have been the same when we said: "`* * * It may be conceded herein for the purpose of this case, that if the action for forfeiture had been brought before Brooks put the reservoir again into use, the court would have been justified, if not constrained, to declare a forfeiture.' (Emphasis added.)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Laramie Rivers Co. v. Wheatland Irrigation District · Wheatland Irrigation District v. Laramie Rivers Co.

2. ““Water may, in this state, be impounded in a reservoir by anyone who is neither the owner or in possession of any land. * * * The owner of such reservoir may sell, lease, transfer, and use such water in such manner and upon such lands as the owner may desire. * * * [§ 41-37, W.S.1957.] In other words, one man may divert and impound water, under an application to, and permit by, the state engineer, for the ultimate use of it by another. The only material difference between such case and diversion by direct flow from a stream seems to be that in the former case the water is not required to be attached to land, while in the latter case it is. * * * it is the policy in this state, along with that of all the arid regions, that its waters should be put to the highest possible use. * * no one should be able to get control of any part of it for mere future speculative profit or advantage. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kearney Lake, Land & Reservoir Co. v. Lake DeSmet Reservoir Co.

3. ““Another factor must be considered in determining the over-all equities between the parties herein. We have set out in some detail the conduct of the parties as between themselves. There can scarcely be any doubt that commencing at least with about 1946 or 1947 — or earlier, according to Sturgeon’s testimony — Sturgeon acknowledged, recognized and acquiesced in the fact that Brooks owned the reservoir and the prior rights therein and that he had the privilege to repair it, and use the water thereafter. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Wheatland Irrigation District v. Dodge