Davis v. Wiebbold’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

61 federal appellate · 21 district · 73 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 225 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““We agree to all that is urged by counsel as to the conclusiveness of the patents of the land department when assailed collaterally in actions at law. We have had occasion to assert their unassailability in such cases in the strongest terms * * *. They are conclusive in such actions of all matters of fact necessary to their issue, where the department had jurisdiction to act upon such matters, and to.determine them; but if the lands .patented were not at the time public property, having been previously disposed of, or no provision had been made for their sale or other disposition, or they had been reserved from sale, the department had no jurisdiction to transfer the land, and their attempted conveyance by patent is inoperative and void, no matter with what seeming regularity the forms of law have been observed.” 139 U.S. 529 , 530, 11 S.Ct. 636 , 35 L.Ed. 238 .”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hardin v. Jordan · Northern Pac. R. v. Barden

2. ““The exceptions of mineral lands from preemption and settlement and from grants to States for universities and schools, for the construction of public buildings, and in aid of railroads and other works of internal improvements are not held to exclude all lands in which minerals may be found, but • only those where the mineral is in sufficient quantity to add to their richness and to justify expenditure for its extraction, and-known to be so at the date of the grant.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Barden v. Northern Pacific Railroad · Reeves v. Oregon Exploration Co.

3. ““In connection with these views it is to be borne in mind also, that the object of the town-site act was to afford relief to the inhabitants- of cities and ' towns upon the public lands, by giving titles to the lands occupied by them, and thus induce them to erect suitable buildings for residence and business. Under such protection many towns have grown up on lands which previously to the patent, were part of the public domain of the United States, with buildings of great value for residence, trade and manufacture. It would be in many instances a great impediment to the progress of such towns if the titles to the lots occupied by their inhabitants were subject to be overthrown by a subsequent discovery of mineral deposits under their surface. If their title would not protect them against a discovery of mines in them, neither would it protect them against the invasion of their property for the purpose of exploring for mines. The temptation to such exploration would be according to the suspected extent of the minerals, and being thus subject to indiscriminate invasion, the land would be to one having the title, poor and valueless, just in proportion to the supposed richness and abundance of its products. We do not think that any such results were contemplated by the act of congress or that any construction should be given to the provision in question which would lead to such results. Our conclusion as already substantially stated, is, that congress only intended to preserve exi”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bonner v. Meikle · Northern Pac. R. v. Barden