Anderson v. Carkins’s Empirical Analysis
135 U.S. 483 · 1890
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 72 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions (18 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2011 · most notably Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co. (1942), Schlemmer v. Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburg Railway Co. (1907)
22 federal appellate · 4 district · 72 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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 Murdock v. City of Memphis · Alexander Marshall v. The Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company · Brooks v. Martin · Planters' Bank v. Union Bank
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““But the Homestead Act specifically requires that the applicant shall make affidavit before entry is made that it is for the purpose of actual settlement and cultivation, and not directly or indirectly Cor the use or benefit of any other person. Rev. Stal. § 2290 [Comp. St. § 4531]. Further, the final proof [the italics are ours] requires affidavit by the applicant that ‘no part of such land has been alienated, except as provided in section 2288’ [section 4535] — Rev. Stat. § 229L [section 4532] — which section limits the right of alienation to ‘church, cemetery or school purposes, or for the right of way of railroads.’ ””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The fact that Anderson has received full payment ' for the land only makes, stronger the fact that perjury on his part was essential to his obtaining the title, for clearly it was' not then to be obtained for him but' for Carkins, and does not in the least militate against the public.policy disclosed in the federal statutes, that the acquisition of title must be.for the exclusive benefit of the .homesteader. * * *”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““There can be no question that this contract contemplated perjury on the part of Anderson, and was designed to thwart the poliey of the government in the •homestead laws, to secure for the benefit of the homesteader the exclusive benefit of his homestead right. Such a contract is against public policy, and will not be enforced in a court of equity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Carley v. Gitchell
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.