Dower v. Richards’s Empirical Analysis
151 U.S. 658 · 1894
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 184 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1970 · most notably Truax v. Corrigan (1921), Capital Traction Co. v. Hof (1899)
31 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
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 Cohens v. Virginia · In re Neagle · The Baltimore · New Orleans Water-Works Co v. Louisiana Sugar Refining Co · Deffeback v. Hawke
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 184 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There can be no doubt that the decision of the Supreme Court of the State in this respect was correct. It is established by former decisions of this court, that, under the acts of Congress which govern this case, in order to except mines or mineral lands from the opera tion of a town-site patent, it is not sufficient that the lands do m fact contain minerals, or even valuable minerals, when the town-site patent takes effect, but they must, at that time, be known to contain minerals of such extent and value as to justify expenditures for the purpose of extracting them; and, if the lands are not known at that time to be so valuable for mining purposes, the fact that they have once been valuable, or are aft-erwards discovered to be still valuable, for such purposes, does not defeat or impair the title of persons claiming under the town-site patent. [Emphasis added.]”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is to be considered, then, that the judicial statute of the United States speaks of an appeal and of a writ of error; but it does not confound the terms nor use them promiscuously. They are to be understood, when used, according to their ordinary acceptation, unless something appears in the act itself to control, modify, or change the fixed and technical sense which they have previously borne. An appeal is a process of civil-law origin, and removes a cause entirely, subjecting the fact, as well as the law, to a review and retrial; but a writ of error is a process of common-law origin, and it removes nothing for reexamination but the law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A writ of error, which brings up matter of law only, has always been distinguished from an appeal, which, unless expressly restricted, brings up both law and fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Land Title, Waimalu
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.