Barney v. Winona & St. Peter Railroad’s Empirical Analysis
117 U.S. 228 · 1886
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 40 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1993 · most notably Wisconsin Cent Co v. Price County (1890), Harriman v. Northern Securities Co. (1905)
21 federal appellate · 40 state decisions — followed in 18 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 Winona St v. Barney · Charles Madsden v. Phœnix Fire Insurance
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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We said, however, that the grant of these additional sections might be regarded as one of quantity, — an inadvertence for which the writer of that opinion, who is also the writer of this one, is alone responsible. The statement was not at all material to the decision, which was that a deduction should have been made by reason of the intersection of the two grants, so far as the prior grant was located within the extension. We recognize the rule that what was decided in a case pending before us on appeal is not open to reconsideration in the same case, on a second appeal upon similar facts. The first decision is the law of the case, and must control its disposition; but the rule does not apply to expressions of opinion on matters the disposition of which was not required for the decision.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““In the consiruclion of land grant acts in aid of railroads, there is n well-established distinction observed between ‘granted lands’ and ‘indemnity lands.’ The former are ¡hose falling within the limits specially designated, and the title to which attaches .when the lands are located by an approved and accepted survey of the line of the road tiled in the hand Department as of the date of the act of Congress. The latter are those lands selected in lieu of parcels lost by previous disposition or reservation for other purposes, and the title to which accrues only from the time of their selection.””
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.