Yates v. Milwaukee’s Empirical Analysis
77 U.S. 497 · 1870
Citation profile
29 federal appellate · 24 district · 162 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 338 later decisions (34 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Erie Co v. Tompkins (1938), Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co (1926)
29 federal appellate · 24 district · 162 state decisions — followed in 35 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 Ducat v. Chicago
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 338 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"This riparian right is property, and is valuable, and, though it must be enjoyed in due subjection to the rights of the public, it cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously destroyed or impaired. It is a right of which, when once vested, the owner can only be deprived in accordance with established law, and if necessary that it be taken for the public good, upon due compensation. " (Emphasis supplied)”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But, whether the title of the owner of such a lot extends beyond the dry land or noi, he is certainly entitled to the rights of a riparian proprietor whoso land is bounded'by a navigable stream; and among those rights are access to the navigable part of the river from the front of his lot, the right to make a landing, wharf, or pier for his own use, or for the use of the public, subject to such general rules and regulations as the Legislature may see proper to impose for the protection of the rights of the public, whatever those may be. This proposition has been decided by this court in the cases of Dutton v. Strong, 1 Black, 25 [ 17 L. Ed. 29 ], and Railroad Co. v. Sehurmeier, 7 Wall. 272 [ 19 L. Ed. 74 ]. * * * This riparian right is property, and is valuable, and, though it must he enjoyed in due subjection to the rights of the public, it cannot be arbitrarily or capriciously destroyed or impaired. It is a right of which, when once vested, the owner can only "bo deprived in accordance with established law, and, if necessary, that it be taken for the public good, upon due compensation.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"It is a doctrine not to be tolerated in this country, that a municipal corporation, without any general laws either of the city or of the state, within which a given structure can be shown to be a nuisance can, by its mere declaration that it is one, subject it to removal by any person supposed to be aggrieved or even by the city itself." Yates v. Milwaukee (1870, US) 10 Wall 497, 19 L. Ed. 984 . 14 A.L.R.2d 82 .”
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.