Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 113 U.S. 527 - Erhardt Boaro

Erhardt Boaro’s Empirical Analysis

113 U.S. 527 · 1885

Citation profile

196
cited by 196 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
14
states following
June 1986
most recently cited

53 federal appellate · 36 district · 51 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 196 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1986 · most notably Ala Schechter Poultry Corporation v. United States (1935), Donnelly v. United States (1913)

53 federal appellate · 36 district · 51 state decisions — followed in 14 states

80018851890190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Carroll v. Alston

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 196 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““A mere posting of a notice on a ridge of rocks cropping out of the earth, or on other ground, that the poster has located thereon a mining claim, without any discovery or knowledge on his part of the existence of metal there, or in its immediate vicinity, would be justly treated as a mere speculative proceeding, and would not itself initiate any right. ' There must be something beyond a mere guess on the part of the miner to authorize him to make a location which will exclude others from the ground, such as the discovery of the presence of the precious metals in it, or in such proximity to it as to justify a reasonable belief in their existence.””
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. ““Section 1. The location of mining claims upon the public domain of the United States shall be made and perfected as provided in this act. “Sec. 2. The discoverer of any vein or lode shall immediately, upon making a discovery, erect at the point of discovery a substantial monument or mound of rocks, and post thereon a preliminary notice, which shall contain: First — the name of the lode or claim; second — the name of the locator or locators; third —the date of the discovery; fourth — the number of linear feet claimed in length along the coarse of the vein each way from the point of discovery; fifth —the width claimed on each side of the center of the vein; sixth — the general course of the vein or lode, as near as may be; seventh — that such notice is a first or preliminary notice. Such notice shall be recorded in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the same is posted within twenty days after the posting thereof. Upon the erection of said monument and posting such notice, the discoverer shall be allowed the period of time specified in section three of this act to enable him to perfect his location as hereinafter provided. “Sec. 3. Within sixty days from the date of the discovery of a vein or lode, the discoverer must perform fifty dollars’ worth of labor in developing his discovery, and distinctly mark his location on the ground so that its boundaries can be readily traced, and must file in the office of the county recorder of the county in which the clai”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. ““And whenever preliminary work is required to define and describe the claim located, the first discoverer must be protected in the possession of the claim until sufficient excavations and development can be made, so as to disclose whether a vein or deposit of such richness exists as to justify work to extract the metal. Otherwise,, the whole purpose of allowing the free exploration of the public lands for the precious metals would in such cases be defeated, and force and violence in the struggle for possession, instead of previous discovery, would determine the rights of claimants.” Erhardt v. Boaro, 113 U. S. 527, 535 , 5 Sup. Ct. 560, 564 ( 28 L. Ed. 1113 ).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.