Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 146 F.1d 739 - Cascaden v. Bartolis

Cascaden v. Bartolis’s Empirical Analysis

146 F. 739 · 1906

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 1980
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Chrisman v. Miller

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

  1. ““What is ‘discovery’ ? What finding of mineral on a placer mining claim is sufficient to satisfy that clause of the statute which provides that ‘no location of a mining claim shall be made until the discovery of the mineral within the limit.s of the claim located?’ Where mineral has been found upon a placer mining claim, and the evidence thereof is of such a character that a person of ordinary prudence, not necessarily a skilled miner, would be justified in the further expenditure of his labor and means, with a reasonable prospect of success, in developing a mine thereon, the requirements of the statute have been met. To hold otherwise would tend to make of little avail, if not entirely nugatory, that provision of the law whereby ‘all valuable mineral deposits in lands belonging to the United States * * * are * * * described to be free and open to exploration and imrehase.’ It'is not a fair criterion that the locator says he is' willing to further expend his labor and means in seeking for mineral thereon. The question should not be left to his arbitrary will or statement, but the facts which are within the observation of the discoverer and which induce him to locate should be such as to justify a man of ordinary prudence, not necessarily a skilled miner, in the expenditure of his time and money in the development of the property. Mere slight indications of the existence of mineral in the ground, a mere possibility that it contains gold, is not enough to justify a prudent pers”
    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.