United States v. Healey’s Empirical Analysis
160 U.S. 136 · 1895
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 25 district · 52 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 228 later decisions (50 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2012 · most notably United States v. Missouri Pacific Railroad (1929), The Paquete Habana (1900)
57 federal appellate · 25 district · 52 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 Edwards' Lessee v. Darby · Robertson v. Downing · Frost v. Wenie · United States v. Philbrick
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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““When the practice in a department in interpreting a statute is uniform, and the -meaning of the statute; upon examination, is found to be doubtful or obscure, this court will accept the interpretation by the department as the true one.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“‘We have said that when the meaning of a statute is donhtful great weight should be given to the construction placed upon it by the department charged with its execution” — citing Robertson v. Downing, 127 U. S. 607 , 8 Sup. Ct. 1328, 32 L. Ed. 269 ; U. S. v. Healy, 160 U. S. 136 , 16 Sup. Ct. 247, 40 L. Ed. 369 .”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““ Under such construction, section 2357 of the Revised Statutes and the Desert Land act do not conflict, but each has a separate and appropriate field of operation; the former, regulating the price of desert lands reserved to the United States along railway lines; and the latter, the price of other desert lands not so located. There is nothing in the nature of the case which renders it proper that desert lands be made an exception to the general rule any more than lands entered under the preemption laws. Lands reserved to the United States along the line of railroads are made double minimum in price because of their enhanced value in consequence of the proximity of such roads. Desert lands subject to reclamation are as much liable to be increased in value by proximity to railroads as any other class of lands, and hence the reason of the law applies to them as well as to other public lands made double minimum in price. To hold desert lands an exception to the general rule regulating the price of lands reserved along the lines of railroads would be to make the laws on this subject inharmonious and inconsistent.””
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.