Jackson v. Roby’s Empirical Analysis
109 U.S. 440 · 1883
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 8 district · 36 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2015 · most notably Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935), Cole v. Ralph (1920)
13 federal appellate · 8 district · 36 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
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Labor and improvements within the meaning of the statute are deemed to have- been had on a mining claim whether it consists of one location or several, when the labor is performed or the improvements are made for its development — that is, to facilitate the extraction of the metals it may contain — though in -fact such labor and improvements may be on ground which originally constituted only one of the locations, as in sinking a shaft, or be at a distance from the claim itself, as where the labor is performed for the turning of a stream or the introduction of water, or where the improvement consists in'the construction of'a flume to carry off the débris or waste ma--terial.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage““The act of 1872 — and its provisions are re-enacted in the Revised Statutes —declares that on each claim subsequently located, until a patent for it ig Issued, there shall be annually expended for labor or improvements $100, and on claims previously located an annual expenditure of $10 for each one hundred feet in length along the vein, and provides that when such claims are held in common the expenditure may he upon any one of them. And It declares that upon a failure to comply with these conditions the claim shall be opened for relocation in the same manner as if no location of the same had ever been made, provided the original locators, their assigns or representatives, have not resumed work upon it after failure and before relocation.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Fee v. Durham
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.