More v. Steinbach’s Empirical Analysis
127 U.S. 70 · 1888
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 12 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions (26 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2014 · most notably American Land Co. v. Zeiss (1911), Greeley v. Lowe (1894)
14 federal appellate · 12 district · 21 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 Holland v. Challen · The United States v. Don Fernando De La Maza Arredondo · Frost v. Spitley · Reynolds v. First Nat Bank of Crawfordsville Indiana · United States v. Juan Percheman
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.
““ It follows from what is thus said that it would be a sufficient answer'to the contention of the defendants, that the grant under which they claim to have acquired a perfect title conferred none. The grantees were not invested with such title, and could not be, without an official delivery of possession under the Mexican government, and such delivery was not had, and could not be had, after the cession of the country, except by American authorities acting under a law of Congress. But independently of this consideration, and assuming that the title under the grant was perfect, the obligation of the grantee was none the less to present his claim to the board of land commissioners for examination. The ascertainment of existing claims was a matter of vital importance to the government in the execution of its policy respecting the public lands; and Congress might well declare that a failure to present a claim should be deemed an abandonment of it, and that the lands covered by it should be considered a part of the public domain.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“to ascertain and settle the private land claims in the State of California,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“As the last act in the series of proceedings, a patent is to issue to the claimant. ■ This instrument is not only the deed of the United States, but it is a solemn record by the Government of its action and judgment with respect to the title of the claimant existing at the date of the cession. By it the sovereign power, which alone could determine the matter, declares that the previous grant was genuine; that the claim under it was valid and entitled to recognition and confirmation by the law of nations and the stipulations of the treaty; and that the grant was located, or might have been located, by the former Government, and is correctly located by the new Government, so as to embrace the premises as they are surveyed and described. Whilst this declaration remains of record, the Government itself cannot question its verity, nor can .parties claiming through the Government by title subsequent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. De Guyer v. Banning
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.