Whitney v. Morrow’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““If, by a legislative declaration, a specific tract is confirmed to any one, his title is not strengthened by a subsequent patent from the government. That instrument may be of great service to him in proving his title, if contested, and the extent of his land, especially when proof of its boundaries would otherwise rest in the uncertain recollection of witnesses. It would thus be an instrument of quid, and security to him, but it could not add to the validity and completeness of the title confirmed by the act of Congress.” Whitney v. Morrow, 112 U. S. 693 , 695, 5 Sup. Ct. 333 , 334 ( 28 L. Ed. 871 ).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. McNee v. Donahue · Reilly v. Shipman

2. ““The power of supervision possessed by the commissioner of the general land office over the acts of the register and receiver of the local land offices in the disposition of the public lands undoubtedly authorizes him to correct and annul entries of land allowed by them where the lands are not subject to entry, or the parties do not possess the qualifications required, or have previously entered all that the law permits. The exercise of this power is necessary to the due administration of the land department If an investigation of the validity of such entries were required in the courts of law before tliey could be canceled, the necessary delays attending the examination would greatly impair, if not destroy, the efficiency of the department. But the power of supervision and correction is not an unlimited or an arbitrary power. It can be exerted only when the entry was made upon false testimony or without authority of law. It cannot he exercised so as to deprive any person of land lawfully entered and paid for. By such entry and payment the purchaser secures a rested Interest In the property, and a right to a patent therefor, and can no more be deprived of It by order of the commissioner than he can be deprived by such order of any other legally acquired 'property. Any attempted deprivation in that way of such interest will be corrected whenever the matter is presented so that the judiciary can act upon it.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Olive Land & Development Co. v. Olmstead