Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 148 U.S. 293 - Wasatch Mining Co. v. Crescent Mining Co.

Wasatch Mining Co. v. Crescent Mining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

148 U.S. 293 · 1893

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
3
cited 3 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
September 1946
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1946 · most notably Bragg v. Metropolitan Street Railway Co. (1905), Crescent Mining Co. v. Wasatch Mining Co. (1894)

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

120189319001910192019301940decided

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 Stephen Harding v. Asa Handy · Stringfellow v. Cain · George Harrison v. Henry Nixon · Carneal v. Banks · Crocket v. Lee

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

  1. “If the plaintiff duly contracted to buy of the defendant and the defendant agreed to sell to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration several pieces or parcels of land, and, if in pursuance of said contract, a deed was made by the defendant to the plaintiff, wherein and whereby by mistake and inadvertence in describing the property conveyed, there was omitted therefrom an important part of the property contracted to be sold, and if the purchase price being a round sum for all the tracts has been paid, a case for the reformation of the deed was clearly made out.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to shut out from consideration the case as proved.” In Wisconsin, section 2669, Rev. St., provides that”
    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.