Baker v. . Hart’s Empirical Analysis
1890
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2013 · most notably Freund v. Washington Square Press, Inc. (1974), Rogers v. . Atlantic, Gulf Pacific Co. (1915)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 19 state decisions
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The right to take all the stone on the land without restriction in time or quantity might readily he held to transfer its ownership. But 1 have found no east' which asserts entire and complete title in the lessee where there was merely a right to mine or quarry, restricted and limited by time or quantity. In such a case all of the stone on the premises does not pass to the lessee, but only such and so much -as within the boundaries of his right he cuts and quarries. The defendants were, of course, trespassers; they entered upon the premises without right, and cut and carried away a quantity of stone. The plaintiffs, under objection, were allowed to prove the value of the stone and to recover that value on the theory that they owned it. But they did not. Their lease gave them no title to it; they did not cut or quarry it, and the, ownership remained in their lessor. Undoubtedly the act of the defendants 'was an infringement of their rights, for which they could recover such damages as they In fact sustained, hut they proved none. If their limits would have exhausted all the stone on the 25 acres, then certainly they would have lost the value of what was wrongfully removed; but, if the supply was such that there remained for them all and more than they could quarry or remove, they at least lost no stone which they were entitled to have, for enough remained to fully satisfy their entire right. Injury in such case would fall upon the lessor, whose property had been taken. It may”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“the sole and exclusive right of entering in and upon the lands ... for the purpose of quarrying, cutting, crushing, and removing stone for the term of ten years, ... but not to hold possession of any part of said land for any other purposes.”
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.