Railroad Company v. Schurmeir’s Empirical Analysis
74 U.S. 272 · 1868
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 23 district · 188 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 388 later decisions (48 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2026 · most notably Montana v. United States (1981), Shively v. Bowlby (1894)
57 federal appellate · 23 district · 188 state decisions — followed in 34 states
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 Lindsey v. Hawes · Dutton v. Strong · Bates v. Illinois Central Railroad
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 388 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) “Por the purpose of defining the sinuosities of the banks of the stream;” (b) “As the means of ascertaining the quantity of the land in the fraction subject to sale, and which is to be paid for by the purchaser;” and .(c) Being outlined and laid down on the plat, “is represented as the border line of the stream, and shows, to a demonstration, that the water course, and not the meander line, as actually run on the land, is the boundary.””
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Viewed in the light of these considerations, the court does not hesitate to decide that congress, in making the distinction between streams navigable and those not navigable, intended to provide that the common-law rules of riparian ownership should apply to lands bordering on the latter, but that the title to lands bordering on navigable streams should stop at the stream, and that all such streams should be deemed to be and remain public highways.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Packer v. Bird · Shively v. Bowlby““Viewed in the light of these considerations, the court does not, hesitate to decide that Congress, in making a distinction between streams navigable, and those not navigable, intended to provide that the common-law rules of riparian ownership should apply to lands bordering on the hitter, but that the title to lands bordering on navigable streams should stop at the stream, and that all such streams should be deemed to be and remain public highways. Although such riparian proprietors are limited to the stream, still they also have the same right to construct suitable landings and wharves, for the convenience of commerce' and navigation, as is accorded'riparian proprietors bordering on navigable waters affected by the ebb and flow of the tide.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.