United States v. Hellard’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““ * * * Congress was free to entrust to the state courts having jurisdiction to partition lands generally the function of determining in a judicial proceeding in partition whether the land shall be sold, and if so to order the sale, and provide that when such sale is made it shall constitute a removal of the restrictions against alienation. In short, Congress was free to .select the district courts of the state as the agency and confide to them authority to determine in that manner whether the restrictions shall he extinguished. Parker v. Richard, 250 U.S. 235 , 39 S.Ct. 442 , 63 L.Ed. 954 ; Whitebird v. Eagle-Picher Lead Co., 10 Cir., 40 F.2d 479 . Taking into consideration the context, the background, and the purpose to be served, we think that is the effect of the statute. Cf. Parker v. Richard, supra; Whitebird v. Eagle-Picher Lead Co., supra; State [ex rel. Miller] v. Huser, 76 Okl. 130 , 184 P. 113 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barnett v. Newcomer

2. ““ * * * in an action in partition under the Act of June 14, 1918, supra, the interests of the United States are entrusted to an instrumentality of its own choice — the district court of the state.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Barnett v. Newcomer