Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 117 TENN 706 - Staub v. Hampton

Staub v. Hampton’s Empirical Analysis

1906

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently January 2019

3 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

20190619101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

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.

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

  1. “‘It is a familiar principle of our system, and one in reason applicable to this species of title, as well as any other, that it is the work on the ground, and not on the'diagram returned, which constitutes the survey, the latter being but evidence (and by no means conclusive) of the former ... It is conceded that the patent may be rectified by the return of survey; and why not the return of survey by the lines on the ground, and particularly the numbered tree, which is the foundation of the whole?’ In the latter case, Kennedy, J., said: ‘That the original lines as found marked on the ground must govern, in determining the location and extent of the survey, is a well-established rule, in general applicable to all cases.’ ... “We know, in point of fact, that the marks made on the ground at the time of making the survey are the original, and therefore the best evidence of what is done in making it; that everything that is committed to paper afterwards in relation to it intended and ought to be, as it were, a copy of what was done, and ought to appear on the ground, in the doing of which errors may be committed, which renders it less to be relied on than the work as it appears by the marks made on the ground.’ 46 Pa., [477,] 484, 485 [1864],”
    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.