Bohall v. Dilla’s Empirical Analysis
114 U.S. 47 · 1885
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1927 · most notably Lee v. Johnson (1885), Sparks v. Pierce (1885)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 11 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 St.louis Smelting and Refining Company v. Kemp. · Quinby v. Conlan · Boggs v. Merced Mining Co. · Estrada v. Murphy
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Those laws are intended for tbe benefit of persons making a settlement upon tbe public .lands, followed by residence and improvement and tbe eree- tkm of a dwelling thereon. This implies a residence both continuous and personal.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Tlie defendant in tlie court below (the plaintiff in error here) is tin holder of a patent of the United States for a parcel of land in ‘Michigan issued to him under tlie homestead laws, and the present suit was brought to charge him as trustee of the property, and to compel a conveyance to> the plaintiff. The patent having been issued by officers of the land department, to whose supervision and control are intrusted the various proceedings required for ihe alienation of the public lands, all reasonable presumptions are indulged in support of their action, ft cannot be attacked' collaterally, bui only by a direct proceeding instituíed by the government or by parties acting in its name and by its authority. If. however, those officers mistake the law applicable to the facts, or misconstrue the statutes, and issue a patent to one not entitled to it, the party wronged can resort to a court of equity to correct the mistake, and compel the transfer of tlie legal title to him as the true owner. The court, in such a case, merely directs that to be done which those officers would have done if no emu of law had been committed. The court: does not interfere with the title of a patentee when the alleged mistake relates to a matter of fact, concerning which those officers may have drawn wrong conclusions from the testimony. A judicial inquiry as to the correctness of such conclusions would encroach upon a, jurisdiction which congress has devolved exclusively upon the department. It i”
1 later decision 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.