Martin v. Busch’s Empirical Analysis
1927
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 95 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2014 · most notably Stop Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2010), Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2010)
4 federal appellate · 2 district · 95 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 Shively v. Bowlby · United States v. Holt State Bank · Economy Light & Power Co. v. United States · Scott v. Lattig · Lee Wilson & Co. v. United States
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A riparian owner is one who owns to the line of ordinary high water mark on navigable waters. Riparian owners in this State usually have title to ordinary high water mark of navigable waters; the lands below such mark belong to the State by virtue of its sovereignty, and are not held for ordinary private ownership purposes. If to serve a public purpose the State, with the consent of the Federal authority, lowers the level of navigable waters so as to make the water recede and uncover lands below the original high water mark, the lands so uncovered below such high water mark continue to belong to the State. Reliction is the term applied to land that has been covered by water, but which has become uncovered by the imperceptible recession of the water. The doctrine of reliction is applicable where from natural causes water recedes by imperceptible degrees, and does not apply where land is reclaimed by governmental agencies as by drainage operations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The State Trustee defendants cannot, by allegation, averment or admission in pleadings or otherwise affect the legal status of or the State's title to sovereignty, swamp and overflowed or other lands held by the Trustees under different statutes for distinct and definite State purposes... . The subsequent vesting of title to sovereignty lands in the Trustees for State purposes under the Acts of 1919 or other statutes does not make the title to sovereignty land inure to claimants under a previous conveyance of swamp and overflowed lands by the State Trustees who then had no authority to convey such sovereignty lands and did not attempt or intend to convey sovereignty lands.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Lands bordering on the shores of a navigable lake or other navigable body of water may be swamp and overflowed lands within the meaning of the Swamp and Overflowed Land Grant Act of Congress of September 28, 1850; but such swamp and overflowed lands do not extend beyond the ordinary high-water mark of navigable lakes, or other bodies of navigable water, since lands under navigable waters to ordinary high-water mark became the property of the State by virtue of its sovereignty, attained when admitted into the Union as a state under the Act of Congress March 3, 1845.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.