Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

99 federal appellate · 29 district · 180 state decisions

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

1. ““It is distinctly alleged in the bill that the new land is an accretion to that originally purchased by the patentee from the United States. The rule of law applicable to such a state of facts is thus stated by this court in [Mayor, Aldermen And Inhabitants of] New Orleans v. United States, 10 Pet. 662 , 717, [ 9 L.Ed. 573 ]: ‘The question is well settled at common law, that the person whose land is bounded by a stream of water which changes its course gradually, by alluvial formations, shall still hold by the same boundary, including the accumulated soil. No other rule can be applied, on just principles. Every proprietor whose land is thus bounded is subject to loss by the same means which may add to his territory; and, as he is without remedy for his loss in this way, he cannot be held accountable for his gain.’ And in Banks v. Ogden, 2 Wall. 57, 67 [ 17 L.Ed. 818 ], it is said: ‘The rule governing additions made to land bounded by a river, lake, or sea, has been much discussed and variously settled by usage and by positive law. Almost all jurists and legislators, however, both ancient and modern, have agreed that the owner of the land thus bounded is entitled to these additions. By some, the rule has been vindicated on the principle of natural justice, that he who sustains the burden of losses and of repairs, imposed by the contiguity of waters, ought to receive whatever benefits they may bring by accretion; by others, it is derived from the principle of public policy, tha”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. United States v. 11,993.32 Acres of Land · Nilsen v. Tenneco Oil Co.

2. ““Provision was made by the act of Eeb-ruary 11, 1805, tnat townships should be 'subuiviued into sections, by running straight lines, from tne mue corners, marked as therein required, to tne opposite corresponding corners, and by marking on eacn ox tne said Lues inter-' mediate corners, as neany as possible equidistant from the corners of the sections on the same.’ Corners thus marked in the surveys are to be regarded as the proper corners of sections, and the provision is, that the corners of half and quarter sections, not actually run and marked on the surveys, shall be placed, as nearly as possible, equidistant from the two corners standing on the same line. 2 Stat. at L. 313. Boundary lines, actually run and marked on the surveys returned, are made the proper boundary lines of the sections or subdivisions for which they were intended, and the second article of the 2d section provides, that the length of such lines, as returned, shall be held and considered as the true length thereof. Lines intended as boundaries, but which were not actually run and marked, must be ascertained by running straight lines from the established corners to the opposite corresponding corners ; but where no such opposite corresponding corners have been, or can be fixed, the boun-darv lines are required to be ascertained by running from the established corners, due north and south, or east and west, as the case may be, to the water course, Indian boundary line, or other external boundary of such fra”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hardin v. Jordan · Overton v. Leonard

3. ““It is a familiar rule of law, that, where a plat is referred to in a deed as containing a description of land, the courses, distances, and other particulars appearing upon the plat are to be as much regarded, in ascertaining the true description of the land and the intent of the parties, as if they had been expressly enumerated in the deed.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Beach Front Hotel Co. v. Sooy · United States v. 62.57 Acres of Land in Yuma County