Marquez v. Frisbie’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

55 federal appellate · 16 district · 92 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 270 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““It plainly appears from this [referring to an allegation in the petition], first, that defendants had not the legal title; second, that it was in the United States; and, third, that the matter was still in fieri, and under the control of the land officers.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Humbird v. Avery · Jones v. Hoover

2. ““That the decision of the officers of the land department, made within the scope of their authority on questions of this kind, is in general conclusive everywhere, except when reconsidered hy way of appeal within that department; and that as to the facts on which the decision is based, in the absence of fraud or mistake, that decision is conclusive, even in courts of justice, when the title afterwards comes in question; but that in this class of cases, as in all others, there exists in the courts of equity the jurisdiction to correct mistakes, to relieve against frauds and impositions, and, in cases where it is clear that those officers have, by a mistake of the law, given to one man the land which, on the undisputed facts, belonged to another, to give appropriate relief." Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72 ; Shepley v. Cowan, 91 U. S. 340 ; Marquez v. Frisbie, 101 U. S. 473 ; Quinby v. Conlan, 104 U. S. 420 .”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sloan v. United States · Smith v. Kennedy

3. ““ It is too obvious for comment that in all this the only use of the words ‘fraud’ and ‘fraudulent’ is to stigmatize acts which are adverse to the plaintiff’s view of his own rights. But there is not a syllable which defines an act fraudulent, in nature, or done or performed under the influence of corrupt motives, or by corrupt means, by the defendant or by any of the land officers who have had to deal with his claim. . . It is idle at this day to suppose that the expensive machinery of a court of equity is to be put in operation for the purpose of reviewing and reversing the judgment of the tribunals to whom that question is by law entrusted, on such loose, untraversable allegations of fraud in general.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Cummings v. McDermid · Wiseman v. Eastman