Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 159 U.S. 332 - McCormick v. Hayes

McCormick v. Hayes’s Empirical Analysis

159 U.S. 332 · 1895

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
7
cited 7 times by the Supreme Court
15
states following
July 1982
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 8 district · 28 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions (7 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1982 · most notably Burfenning v. Chicago St P M O Ry Co (1896), United States v. State of Minnesota (1926)

10 federal appellate · 8 district · 28 state decisions — followed in 15 states

2001895190019101920193019401950196019701980decided

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 Stein v. People of State of New York Wissner · Wright v. Roseberry · French v. Fyan · Gaines v. Thompson · Heath v. Wallace

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

  1. ““The controlling question, therefore, in this case, so far as the plaintiff is concerned. — and he must recover upon the strength of his own title, even if that of the defendant be defective — is whether,- under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the particular lands in controversy, in the absence of any selection and certification of them by the United States to the state, under the Swamp Land Act, can be shown by parol testimony to have been, in fact, at the date of that act, swamp and overflowed -lands. Congress, having made it the duty of the Secretary of the Interior to make out accurate lists and plats of the lands embraced by the Swamp Land Act, and transmit the sanje to the Governor of the state, and at the request of the latter to cause a patent to be issued to the state therefor, and having provided that ‘on that patent the fee simple to said lands shall vest in said state subject to the disposal of the Legislature thereof,’ did the title vest in the state, by virtue alone, and immediately upon the passage of the act, without any selection by or under the direction of the Department of the Interior, so that the state’s grantees could maintain an action to recover the possession of them?””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.