Pickering v. Lomax’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

21 federal appellate · 8 district · 36 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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The object of the xjroviso was not to xwevent the alienation of lands in toto, but to protect the Indian against the improvident disposition of his Xiroperty, and it will be xwesumed that the President, before affixing his approval, satisfied himself that no fraud or imposition had been practiced upon the Indian when the deed was originally obtained.””

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Anicker v. Gunsburg · Moore v. Sawyer

2. ““The treaty does not provide how or when the permission of the President shall be obtained, and there is certainly nothing which requires that it shall be given before the deed is delivered. Godfrey v. Beardsley, 2 McLean, 412 , Fed. Cas. No. 5,497. It is doubtless, as was said by the Supreme Court of Mississippi in Doe v. Partier, 12 Smedes & M. [Miss.] 425, 427, 'a condition precedent to a perfect title’ in the graittee; but the neglect in this case to obtain the approval of the President for thirteen years only shows that for that length of time the title was imperfect, and that no action' of ejectment would have lain until the condition was performed. Had the grantee the day after the deed was delivered sent it to Washington and obtained the approval of the President, it would be sticking in the bark to say that the deed was not thereby validated. A delay of thirteen years is immaterial, provided, of course, that no third parties have in the meantime legally acquired an interest in the lands. If, after executing this deed, Robinson had given another to another person, with the permission of the President, a wholly different question would have arisen. But, so far as Robinson and his grantees are concerned, the approval of the President related back to the execution of the deed and validated it from that time. As was said by this court in Cook v. Tullis, 85 U. S. (18 Wall.) 332, 338 , 21 L. Ed. 933 , 936: ‘The ratification operates upon the act ratified precisely as though”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lomax v. Pickering · Almeda Oil Co. v. Kelley

3. “not as a .new title acquired by a warrantor subsequent to his deed enures to the benefit of the grantee,'but as a deed imperfect when executed, may be made perfect as of the date when it was delivered.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lomax v. Pickering