United States v. Trinidad Coal & Coking Co.’s Empirical Analysis
137 U.S. 160 · 1890
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 34 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 187 later decisions (27 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2004 · most notably United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co. (1906), Heckman v. United States (1912)
57 federal appellate · 34 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 11 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 Baltimore v. Fifth Baptist Church · In re Morrissey · McKinley v. Wheeler · United States v. Trinidad Coal & Coking Co.
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 187 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"WMle the coal land law does not expressly prohibit an entry by one person for the belli1 lit. of another, it does limit the quantity of land -that may be acquired thereunder by one person to ICO acres, and the quantity that may be acquired by an association of persons to ¿>20 acres and, in exceptional instances, 640 acres; and it declares that its sections 'shall be held to authorize only one entry by the same person or association of persons; and no'association of persons any member of which shall have taken the benefit of such sections, either as an individual or as a member of any other association, shall enter or hold any other lands under the provisions thereof; and no member of any association which shall have taken the benefit of such sections shall enter or hold any other lands under their provisions.’ These restrictions, as this court lias held, forbid individuals and associations from acquiring public coal land in excess of the quantities prescribed, whether directly by entries in their own names or indirectly by entries made for their benefit in the names of others. And so, one iierson cannot lawfully make an entry in the interest of another who has had the benefit of the law, or in the interest of an association where it or any of its members has had the benefit, thereof, or in the interest of a person or an association where he or it has not had such benefit, but is seeking, through entries made or to be made by others in his or its interest, to acquire a gre”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"“The restrictions imposed, upon the entry and purchase of the vacant coai. lands of the United" States have been so clearly expressed that no doubt can» exist as to the intention of Congress in enacting the above sections. The statute authorizes an association, of persons to enter not exceeding 320 acres, andt provides that only one entry can ¡be made by the same person or association, and that ‘no association of persons, any member of which shall have taken the benefit of such sections, either as an individual or as a member of any other association, shall enter or hold any other lands under the provision», thereof.’ “It is contended that the case made by the bill is not within the prohibitions of the statute, although the demurrer admits that the Trinidad Coai & Coking Company acquired the lands in dispute pursuant to a scheme whereby the several tracts were to be entered for its benefit, in the name of certain persons, its officers, stockholders, and employes; the title, when thus obtained,, to be conveyed to the company, which should, and did, bear all the expenses^ attending the entries and purchases from the government. This contention cannot be sustained unless the court lends its aid to make successful a mere-device to evade the statute. The policy adopted for disposing of the vacant coal lands of the United States should not be frustrated in this way. It was-, for Congress to prescribe the conditions under which individuals and associations of individuals might acqu”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““If the defendant is entitled, upon a cancellation of the patents fraudulently and illegally obtained from the United States, in the name of others, for its benefit, to a return of the moneys furnished to its agents in order to procure such patents, we must assume that Congress will make an appropriation for that purpose, when it becomes necessary to do so. The proposition that the defendant, having violated a public statute in obtaining public lands that were dedicated to other purposes, cannot be required to surrender them .until it has been reimbursed the amount expended by it in procuring the legal title, is not within the reason of the ordinary rule that one who seeks equity must do equity; and, if sustained, would interfere with the prompt and efficient administration of the public domain.””
2 later decisions 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.