Dahl v. Raunheim’s Empirical Analysis
132 U.S. 260 · 1889
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 1997 · most notably Donnelly v. United States (1913), Lawson v. United States Mining Co. (1907)
4 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 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 St.louis Smelting and Refining Company v. Kemp. · Reynolds v. Iron Silver Mining Co. · Noyes v. Mantle · Iron Silver Min Co v. Reynolds
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““It does not appear in the present case that a patent of the United States had been issued to plaintiff, but it appears that he has complied with all the proceedings essential for the issue of such a patent. He is, therefore, the equitable owner of the mine, and the government holds the premises in trust, for him, to be delivered upon the payment specified. We accordingly treat him, so far as the questions involved in this case are concerned, as though the patent had been delivered to him. Being entitled tó it, he has the right to ask a determination of any claim asserted against his possession which may throw doubt upon his title.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is earnestly objected to the title of the plaintiff that he did not present any proof that the mining ground claimed by him was placer ground. * * * That it was placer ground is conclusively established, in this controversy, against the defendant, by the fact that no adverse claim was asserted by him to the plaintiff’s application for a patent of the premises as such ground. That question is not now open to litigation by private parties seeking to avoid the effect of the plaintiff’s proceedings.” 10 S.Ct. at 75.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““That the court did not intend to decide that a lode claimant must adverse a placer application or be precluded from showing subsequently that the lode was known to exist at the time the placer application was filed, is manifest from its language in another portion of the opinion. ‘The only position upon which the defendant (the lode claimant) can resist the pretentions of the plaintiff is, that the placer ground, for a patent of which he applied, does not embrace the lode claim.’ That is, that the lode was known to exist within the limits of the placer ground prior to the filing of the placer application, and therefore did not pass by the placer patent. This view harmonizes with the later decisions of the same court.” 3 Lindley on Mines (3d ed.) § 720, p. 1763.”
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.