Union Mill & Mining Co. v. Dangberg’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““These conflicting rights, whatever they may be, can be determined by one suit. Complainant might not be able to maintain its suit against them singly, for it may be that no one of the respondents acting individually has deprived complainant of all the- water to which it is entitled. Complainant Is only entitled, if at all, to a certain amount of the water of the river, and it is by the action of all the respondents that it has been deprived of the water to which it claims to be entitled. Each respondent claims the right to divert a given quantity of water. The aggregate thus claimed so reduces the volume of the water in the river as to deprive complainant of the amount to which it is entitled. To this extent, even if there is no such unity or concert of action or common design in the use of the water to injure complainant, there is certainly such a result in the use of the water by the respondents as authorizes complainant to maintain this suit, upon the ground that the action of all the respondents has produced and brought about the injury of which it complains. Every one who contributes to such injury is properly made a party respondent.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ames Realty Co. v. Big Indian Mining Co. · Rickey Land & Cattle Co. v. Wood

2. “■ “The right to water acquired by prior' appropriation is not dependent upon tbe place where the water is used. A party having obtained the prior right to the use of a given quantity of water is not restricted in such right to the use or place to which it was first applied. It is well settled that a person entitled to a given quantity of the water of a stream may take the- same at ,any point on the stream, and may change the point of diversion at pleasure, and may also change the character of its use, if the rights of others be not affected thereby.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Miller & Lux v. Rickey

3. ““In all cases where it shall appear to the court that persons who might otherwise be deemed necessary or proper parties to the suit cannot be made parties by reason of their being out of the jurisdiction of the court, or incapable otherwise of being parties, or because their joinder would oust the jurisdiction of the court as to the parties before the court, the court may, in their discretion, proceed in the case, without making such persons parties; and in such cases the decree shall be without prejudice to the rights of the absent parties.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mackay v. Gabel