United States v. Drumb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Congress had the power to make a disposal of these contingent reversionary interests in railroad rights of way, not only of those which might be abandoned subsequent to the passage of the Act, but also of those where abandonment had occurred prior thereto. In Missouri K. & T. R. Co. v. Roberts, 152 U.S. 114 , 14 S. Ct. 496, 497 , 38 L.Ed. 377 , the Supreme Court points out that while the rights of Indians to their tribal lands arose by treaty, presumably between two sovereign people, as a matter of fact the superior rights to these lands were in the United States for the benefit of the Indians, with power in the government to make such disposal thereof as it saw fit. ijí ⅜ j{i ⅜ ⅜ “. . . It is a general principle of law, adhered to without exception, that when a railroad right of way easement is abandoned, the tract reverts by operation of law and becomes a part of the abutting or adjoining property . There is, however, nothing in any of the acts of Congress out of which this right of way arose which evidences an intent on the part of Congress that this rule of law should not apply to such lands. In the absence of some contrary intimation in some of the acts of Congress dealing with Indian lands, we think the presumption must be that Congress intended that the general rule should apply. Under this rule, upon abandonment of a right of way while the adjoining land was in the Tribe, the strip of land would revert to the abutting property and belong to the Tribe. If in the meant”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Vaughn v. Fitzgerald · Choctaw Nation v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co.

2. “(1) That the grant vested the full fee title to the tract in the railroad company, and that the abandonment did not effect a reverter; (2) that the statute of limitations had run; (3) that the Act of April 26, 1906, 34 Stat. 137 , Section 14, vested the title in the City of McAlester;' (4) that the railroad company did not abandon the tract because it acquired land on the other side of the tracks for railroad purposes.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 6 F. App'x 725 - Union Pacific Railroad v. City of Atoka

3. “An Act To provide for the final disposition of the affairs of the Five Civilized Tribes in the Indian Territory, and for other purposes”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. E. G. Fitzgerald v. City of Ardmore, Oklahoma, a Municipal Corporation, Willie Mae Lane v. City of Ardmore, Oklahoma, a Municipal Corporation