Coffee v. Groover’s Empirical Analysis
123 U.S. 1 · 1887
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2004 · most notably Clyatt v. United States (1905), Jones v. United States (1890)
8 federal appellate · 6 district · 24 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.
Relationships
Relies on The United States v. Don Fernando De La Maza Arredondo · James Foster v. David Neilson · The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantationss v. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts · United States v. Juan Percheman · Strother v. Lucas
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is no doubt the received doctrine, that in cases of ceded or conquered territory, the rights of private property in lands are respected. Grants made by the former government, being rightful when made, are not usually disturbed. Allegiance is transferred from one government to the other without any subversion of property. [[Image here]] But whilst this is the acknowledged rule in cases of ceded, and even conquered territory, with regard to titles acquired from a former sovereign who had undoubted right to create them, it does not apply (as we shall see) to cases of disputed boundary, in relation to titles created by a sovereign m possession, but not rightfully so.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“"The case, if it can be avoided, ought not to be decided upon a narrow selection of facts which might determine the question one way, before one jury, to-day, and another way, before another jury, to-morrow; but upon a broad view of all the historical events which relate to this boundary line. We shall proceed, therefore, to review these events as far as they have come to our knowledge from public documents."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“was not in fact, and cannot be construed as, a cession of territory on the part of Georgia.”
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.