Baldwin v. Stark’s Empirical Analysis
107 U.S. 463 · 1882
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions (10 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 1940 · most notably Joy v. City of St. Louis (1906), Scott v. Lattig (1913)
7 federal appellate · 4 district · 17 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 Johnson v. Towsley · Shepley v. Cowan · James v. Campbell · Marquez v. Frisbie
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Tills is a writ of error to the supreme court of the slate of Nebraska, and the jurisdiction of this court is questioned. The substance of the original bill in tlie state court is that, in a contest for the right to enter a tract of land between Starks and Yan Pelt, before the land department, the secretary of the interior erroneously decided in favor of Van Pelt, to whom a patent was issued; and the prayer of the bill is that Baldwin, who holds under Yan Pelt, shall he decreed to hold the title in trust for Starks, and convey it to him, and be enjoined from prosecuting further an action of ejectment against plaintiff, which he has commenced for the land in controversy. That the decree which granted this relief denied to plaintiffs in error the right which they asserted under the patent from the United States, and was a decision against the title so asserted, and is, therefore, within section 70& of the Revised Statutes, is too well settled by numerous similar cases decided in this court to admit of further question.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage““Where fraud or imposition has been practiced on the party interested, or on the officers of the law. or where these latter have clearly. mistaken the law of the case as applicable to the facts, courts of equity may give relief: but they are not authorized to re-examine- into a mere question of fact dependent on conflicting evidence, and to review the weight which those officers attached to such evidence.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Clinton v. Miller
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.