Wolsey v. Chapman’s Empirical Analysis
101 U.S. 755 · 1879
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 16 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 154 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2020 · most notably Mistretta v. United States (1989), Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)
42 federal appellate · 16 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 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 De La Fayette Wilcox v. John Jackson · Dubuque & Pacific Railroad v. Litchfield · Wolcott v. Des Moines Co. · Williams v. Baker
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 154 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““If the President himself, lied signed the order in this ease, and sent it to the register's and receivers who were to act under it, as notice to them of what they were to do in respect to the sales of the public lands, we c-armot doubt that the lands would have been reserved by proclamation within the meaning of the statute. Such being the case, it follows necessarily from the decision in Wilcox v. Jackson that such an order sent out from the appropriate' executive department in the regular course of business is the legal equivalent of the President’s own order to the same effect.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is conceded that the lands in controversy were actually reserved from sale by competent authority when the selection was made under the act of 1841. They were reserved also in consequence of the act of 1846. The proper executive department of the government had determined, that because of doubts about the extent and operation of that act, nothing should be done to impair the rights of the state above the Raccoon fork until the differences were settled, either by congress or judicial decision. For that purpose an authoritative order was issued, directing the local land officers to withhold all the disputed lands from sale. This withdrew the lands from private entry, and, as we held in Riley v. Wells, [not reported,] was sufficient to defeat a settlement for the purpose of preemption while the order was in force, notwithstanding it was afterward found that the law by reason of which this action was taken did not contemplate such a withdrawal.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Wood v. Beach · Wood v. Beach““ That any and- all lands heretofore reserved to the United States, by any act -of Congress, or in any' other manner by competent authority, for the purpose of aiding in any object of internal improvement, or for any other purpose whatsoever, be, and the same are hereby, reserved to the United States from the operation of this act, except so far as it may be found necessary to locate the routes of said railroads through such reserved lands, in which case the right of way only shall be granted, subject to the approval of the President ot the United States.” 11 Stat. 9 .”
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.