Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 156 F.2d 769 - United States v. Champlin Refining Co.

United States v. Champlin Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis

156 F.2d 769 · 1946

Citation profile

15
cited by 15 later decisions
2
states following
August 1989
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently August 1989

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

8019461950196019701980decided

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

Applies 25 U.S.C. § 348 · 43 U.S.C. § 931

Relies on Hardin v. Jordan · United States v. Holt State Bank · State of Oklahoma v. State of Texas · United States v. Oregon · Economy Light & Power Co. v. United States

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

  1. ““Grants by the United States of its public lands bounded on streams or other waters, navigable or nonnavigable, made without reservation or restriction, are to be construed as to their effect according to the law of the state in which the land lies. As regards such conveyances, the United States assumes the position of a private owner, subject to the general law of the state. Where it is disposing of tribal lands of Indians under guardianship, the same rule applies.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Under the rules of the common law, unless a contrary intention appears or is clearly in-ferable from the terms of the grant, the grantee of land, bounded by a nonnavigable stream or river, acquires title to the land to the center or thread of the water, on the theory that the grantor will not be presumed to have reserved a strip of land covered by water which will be of no practical value to him.”
    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.