Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 128 U.S. 456 - Cornelius v. Kessel

Cornelius v. Kessel’s Empirical Analysis

128 U.S. 456 · 1888

Citation profile

224
cited by 224 later decisions
37
cited 37 times by the Supreme Court
18
states following
April 1997
most recently cited

73 federal appellate · 9 district · 52 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 224 later decisions (37 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1997 · most notably United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. (1906), Cameron v. United States (1920)

73 federal appellate · 9 district · 52 state decisions — followed in 18 states

570188818901900191019201930194019501960197019801990decided

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 Stark v. Starrs · Quinby v. Conlan · Witherspoon v. Duncan · Charles Carroll v. Orrin Safford

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

  1. ““The power of supervision possessed by the commissioner of the general land office over the acts of the register and receiver of the local land offices in the disposition of the public lands undoubtedly authorizes him to correct and annul entries of land allowed by them where the lands are not subject to entry, or the parties do not possess the qualifications required, or have previously entered all that the law permits. The exercise of this power is necessary to the due administration of the land department If an investigation of the validity of such entries were required in the courts of law before tliey could be canceled, the necessary delays attending the examination would greatly impair, if not destroy, the efficiency of the department. But the power of supervision and correction is not an unlimited or an arbitrary power. It can be exerted only when the entry was made upon false testimony or without authority of law. It cannot he exercised so as to deprive any person of land lawfully entered and paid for. By such entry and payment the purchaser secures a rested Interest In the property, and a right to a patent therefor, and can no more be deprived of It by order of the commissioner than he can be deprived by such order of any other legally acquired 'property. Any attempted deprivation in that way of such interest will be corrected whenever the matter is presented so that the judiciary can act upon it.””
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““purchaser secures a vested interest in the property, and a right to a patent therefor, and can no more be deprived of it by order of the commissioner than he can be deprived by such order of any other lawfully acquired property. Any attempted deprivation in that way of such interest will be corrected whenever the matter is presented so that the judiciary can act upon it.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““The power of supervision possessed by the commissioner of the general land-office over the acts of the register and receiver of the local land-offices is not unlimited or arbitrary, but can only be exerted when an entry is made upon false testimony, or without authority of law, and cannot be exercised so as to deprive-a person of land lawfully entered and paid for.””
    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.