Winona St v. Barney’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

20 federal appellate · 12 district · 20 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 129 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The solution of these questions depends, of course, upon the construction given to the acts making the grants; and they are to receive such a construction as will carry out the intent of Congress, however difficult it might be to give full effect to the language used if the grants were by instruments of private conveyance. To ascertain that intent, we must look to the condition of the country when the acts were passed, as well as to the purpose declared on their face, and read all parts of them together.””

   7 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barden v. Northern Pacific Railroad · Shaw v. Kellogg

2. ““But in case it shall appear that thé United States have, when the line of said road is definitely located, sold any section, or any part thereof, granted as aforesaid, or that the right of pre-emption or homestead settlement has attached to the same, or that the same has been reserved by the United States for any purpose whatever, then it shall bo the duty of the secretary of the interior to cause to be selected for the purposes aforesaid, from the public lands of the United States nearest to the sections above specified, so much land as shall be equal to the amount of such lands as the United States have sold, reserved, or otherwise appropriated,” etc. 14 U. S. St. at Large, 289.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beley v. Naphtaly · United States v. Missouri, K. & T. Ry. Co.

3. ““As to the effect of the reservation in the third section of the act of 1865 of lands previously granted to Minnesota for the purpose of aiding in the construction of any railroad, there should be little doubt. The grant by the act of 1857 is one of description; that is, of land in place, and not of quantity. * * * [That is, the original grant.] The act of 1865 enlarges tho quantity from six sections to ten, and the indemnity limits from fifteen miles to twenty. The character of the grant, so far as the six sections are concerned, is not thereby changed from one of lands in place, or by description, to one of quantity. The use of the terms ‘quantity of lands granted’ in tho first section, in referring to the amount granted by the act of 1857, is of no significance. It is the same thing as though the act had used the words ‘ six sections ’ instead of the word ‘quantity,’ and had said that they should be increased to ten sections. The four sections are to he selected by the secretary of the interior beyond the twelve and within the twrnnty miles limit; and as to them the grant may be regarded as one of quantity, though tho coterminous principle applies to them, and they are to bo selected along and opposite the completed road.” 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 611 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barney v. Winona & St. P. R.