Tiegs v. Watts’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
29 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably State Ex Rel. Wyoming Department of Revenue v. Buggy Bath Unlimited, Inc. (2001), Grundy v. Thurston County (2005)
29 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
Applies 33 U.S.C. § 1131 · 33 U.S.C. § 1342
Relies on City of El Centro v. United States · Spencer v. Brown · Evans v. United States · 127 Wash. 2d 67 - Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc. · 104 Wash. 2d 677 - Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[U] ¿Lawfully doing an act, or omitting to perform a duty, which act or omission either annoys, injures or endangers the comfort, repose, health or safety of others, offends decency, or unlawfully interferes with, obstructs or tends to obstruct, or render dangerous for passage, any lake or navigable river, bay, stream, canal or basin, or any public park, square, street or highway; or in any way renders other persons insecure in life, or in the use of property.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“Jury instructions are reviewed de novo, and an instruction that contains an erroneous statement of the applicable law is reversible error where it prejudices a party. Jury instructions are sufficient when they allow counsel to argue their theories of the case, do not mislead the jury and, when taken as a whole, properly inform the jury of the law to be applied.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he fact a governmental authority tolerates a nuisance is not a defense if the nuisance injures adjoining property.”
2 later decisions 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.