Chambers v. Harrington’s Empirical Analysis
111 U.S. 350 · 1884
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 14 district · 54 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2014 · most notably Donnelly v. United States (1913), Blackburn v. Portland Gold Mining Co. (1900)
19 federal appellate · 14 district · 54 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 Belk v. Meagher · Jackson v. Roby · Greenleaf v. Goodrich
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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"When several claims are held in common, it is in the line of this policy to allow the necessary work to keep them all alive, to be done on one of them. But obviously on this one the expenditure of money or labor must equal in value that which would be required on all the claims if they were separate or independent. It is equally clear that in such case the claims must be contiguous, so that each claim thus associated-may in some way be betiefited by the work done on one of them.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On each claim located after the 10th day of May, 1872, and until a patent has been issued therefor, not less than $100.00 worth of labor shall be performed or improvements made during each year. . . but where such claims are held in common, such expenditure may be made upon any one claim; .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It often happens that for the development of a mine upon which several claims have been located, expenditures are required exceeding the value of a single claim, and yet without such expenditures the claim could not be successfully worked. In such cases it has always been the practice for the owners of the different locations to combine and work them as one general claim; and expenditures which may be necessary for the development of all the claims may then be made on one of them. * * * In other words, the law permits a general system to be adopted for adjoining claims held in common, and in such case the expenditures required may be made or the labor be performed upon any one of them.” See also Love v. Mt. Oddie United Mines Co., 43 Nev. 61 , 181 P. 133 , 184 P. 921 .”
1 later decision 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.