Wunderle v. Wunderle’s Empirical Analysis
1893
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently December 1983 · most notably Techt v. . Hughes (1920), Harding v. American Glucose Co. (1899)
4 federal appellate · 1 district · 42 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 Geofroy v. Riggs · Hauenstein v. Lynham · Ware v. Hylton · Millett v. People · Runyan v. Lessee of Coster
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“‘‘‘Non-resident aliens and corporations not incorporated under the laws of . the state of Nebraska, are hereby prohibited from acquiring title to or taking or holding any lands or real estate in this state by descent, devise, purchase .. or otherwise, only as hereinafter provided, except that the widow and heirs {..of aliens who have heretofore acquired lands in this state under the laws ., thereof, may hold such lands by devise or descent for a period of ten (10) , years and no longer, and if at the end of such time herein limited such lands Í so acquired have not been sold to a bona fide purchaser for value, or such . alien heirs have nqt become residents of this state, such lands shall revert and ¡ escheat to.the state of Nebraska, and it shall be the duty of the county attorney in the counties where such lands are situated to enforce forfeitures of all such lands as provided by this act.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““It is urged that the act of 1887 should be liberally construed, and that such liberal construction would have the effect of extending the exception named in section 1 to the alien heirs of citizens, as well as to the heirs of aliens. In other words, we are asked to so construe the exception as to give the nonresident alien kindred of citizens the right to take lands by descent or devise, and hold the same for three or five years so as to make sale, or acquire an actual residence in the state. This would involve the insertion of the words ‘and the alien heirs of citizens’ after the words ‘except that the heirs of aliens.’ By such a construction we would make the Legislature say what it has not said. It is not the province of the judiciary to make laws, but to construe and interpret them and pass upon, their validity. But here the Legislature has expressly declared that the heirs of certain aliens shall take and hold land for limited periods subject to the privilege of avoiding their escheat to the state by a sale of them, or by acquiring an actual residence in the state, within said periods. But the act of 1887 nowhere declares, nor is there anything on its face to indicate that the Legislature intended thereby to declare, that the nonresident alien kindred; of citizens should so take and hold lands for certain periods.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Except that the widows and heirs of aliens or citizens who have heretofore acquired lands in this state,’’ etc.”
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.