Mitchell v. Smale’s Empirical Analysis
140 U.S. 406 · 1891
Citation profile
48 federal appellate · 14 district · 97 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 262 later decisions (22 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2020 · most notably Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Martin (1900), United States v. Holt State Bank (1926)
48 federal appellate · 14 district · 97 state decisions — followed in 20 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 Jefferis v. East Omaha Land Co. · Railroad Company v. Schurmeir · Ayers v. Watson · Little v. Giles
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 262 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We think it a groat hardship, and one not to be endured, for the government officers to make new surveys and grants of the beds of such lakes after selling and granting the lands bordering thereon, or represented so to be. It is nothing more or less than taking from the first grantee a most valuable, and often the most valuable part of his grant. Plenty of speculators will always be found, as such property increases in value, to enter it and deprive the proper owner of its enjoyment; and to place such persons in possession under a new survey and grant, and put the original grantee of tho adjoining property to his action of ejectment and plenary proof of his own title, is a cause of vexatious litigation which ought not to be created or sanctioned. The pretence for making such surveys, arising from the fact that strips and tongues of land are found to project into tho water beyond tho meander line run for the purpose of getting its general contour, and of measuring the quantity to be paid for, will always exist, since such irregular projections do always, or in most cases, exist. The difficulty of following the edge or margin of such projections, and all the various sinuosities of the water line, is the very occasion and cause of running the meander line, which by its exclusions and inclusions of such irregularities of contour produces an average result closely approximating to the truth as to the quantity of upland contained in tho fractional lots bordering on the lake or str”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““But, be tills as It may, we tMnk the additional ground of removal stated in the amended petition was sufficient to authorize the removal to be made. * “ * This ground of removal presented a case arising under the laws of the United States.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It has been decided again and again that the meander line is not a boundary, but that the body of water whose margin is meandered is the true boundary.””
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.