Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 139 F.3d 726 - Hoefler v. Babbitt

Hoefler v. Babbitt’s Empirical Analysis

139 F.3d 726 · 1998

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
3
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently March 2024

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

1201998200020102020decided

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 Best v. Humboldt Placer Mining Co. · Cameron v. United States · Andrus v. Charlestone Stone Products Co. · United States v. Ruby Co. · Lewis v. Telephone Employees Credit Union

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

  1. “is fully empowered to determine whether a [mining] claim, such as the one before this Court, is valid and, if it finds the claim invalid, the Department may declare the claim null and void.”) (citations omitted). 2 . See 43 U.S.C. §§ 851-52 . 3 . Noonan v. Caledonia Gold Min. Co., 121 U.S. 393, 403 , 7 S.Ct. 911, 916 , 30 L.Ed. 1061, 1064 (1887) (holding that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The United States may be named as a party defendant in a civil action under this section to adjudicate a disputed title to real property in which the United States claims an interest, other than a security interest or water rights.”
    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.